No, but they had to endure diesels in general being 25% of the vehicles on the road even when they were loud, smelly and horse-and-cart slow.
Power steering is breeding a nation of weaklings!
WTF are you talking about?
You can see here that the Edge petrol model is the middle of the line. The cheapest one is the Studio model. The package on the Edge is pretty much the exact same package as on the ECOnetic. The difference is the fuel type and the mileage. If you have a site that gives other models than that Ford one to compare, go at it.
You want I should use a different comparison? Okay.
How about the VW Golf? Difference between gas and diesel models over $4000 (actually over $5000 for the 2-dr). Fuel costs annually for the typical 12,000 miles about $1656 for the gas and $1420 for the diesel. Difference $236/yr. ROI about 17 years. Feel free to do the math yourself.
Diesels face a chicken and egg problem in the US. Because there are so few on the road, not all filling stations stock Diesel fuel…which provides a disincentive to buy one. It is rarely an actual problem, but it is one more thing to have to plan for, and occasionally you end up paying extortionate rates at the one station selling diesel in a large area, and many of the really cheap places that sell gas, like Krogers or Costco, won’t carry Diesel. (I have seen exceptions…seems to vary by state: Fry’s in AZ has Diesel, Smith’s in NM doesn’t, yet both are Krogers)
Another problem in the suburban US is that so many short trips are made. Plenty of parents seem to think that 1/2 mile is too far to walk to school or soccer practice. It is certainly too short to warm up a Diesel, and will not allow either the longevity or economy that Diesels are known for if such trips are typical.
It hasn’t been mentioned yet in this thread, but many (most) modern diesel powered vehicles are turbo-charged. Diesels respond spectacularly well to turbo-charging. Often limiters are placed in the control software to avoid damaging the transmission with excessive torque. Because the engines are operating with an artificial torque limit, they can produce that torque over an extremely wide rpm range, and under adverse atmospheric conditions. Many turbo Diesel cars/trucks will produce as much horsepower at 10,000’ MSL as at sea level, while a normally aspirated spark ignition engine will lose nearly half it’s power.
Of course you can turbo charge a SI engine, but not to the degree you can boost a diesel, and you have to drop the base compression ratio, which kills efficiency. With a Diesel, there is virtually no downside to turbo charging.
Recently I had the pleasure of driving a Peugeot 207 turbo Diesel “64” for several days. Fantastic little car, very sporty and easy on fuel. Lucky for my bank account they are not imported, as I’d really like to own one. If only it had been RWD, it would have been perfect.
But if you gain that 20% efficiency by switching from petrol to diesel you are using a fuel which contains more carbon and potentially has more CO2 emissions, or perhaps just a lot of black soot.
You can use Ford’s own UK price list, which is here: http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Fiesta/BrochurePricesSpecifications (it’s a non-linkable .pdf). The ECOnetic is specifically tuned and equipped to take advantage of the UK’s carbon-emissions based road tax.
If you look at the Edge trim level itself, the best-equipped petrol version is 13,410 pounds… and the equivalent diesel is 13,315.00.
Those are the prices for the US range. That’s not a fair comparison, because VW only sells about one fifth as many diesels as it does petrol cars in the US.
Going by the UK price list, a petrol-powered 3-door Golf with the S (base) trim level is 13,624.17 pounds. The diesel 3-door is 13,761 pounds. In fairness, the petrol version comes with a 1.4 litre engine, and the diesel comes with a 1.6, but that’s because VW doesn’t offer a 1.6 litre petrol.
Look at the “technical specifications” brochure. The 1.4L petrol and 1.4L diesels are equivalent in displacement, but not in performance. The 1.4 Diesel is slower than all but the bottom of the barrel 1.2 L petrol motor. The 1.4L petrol has the same 0-60 time as the Econetic 1.6L, and you pay an extra 1600 pounds for it (er… you pay more for the diesel, obviously).
Missed the edit, but just to try to avoid yet another protracted argument about such and such a foreign option package let me ask a question. If you’re trying to argue that diesels add little to no cost, and yield much better mileage, why do you think they even bother making gasoline engines any more?
The answer is performance-- diesels do cost more if you want them to perform as well as gasoline engines. What makes all those high mileage diesels possible in Europe is that people are willing to put up with a car that is either slower or more expensive in exchange for better economy. US buyers are not, which is the reason why we don’t have many diesels here. There is simply no free lunch in this regard-- either you’re looking at a more expensive power-plant, or a slower one.
Diesels are always slower than equivalent petrol vehicles. I didn’t think that was a secret. Neither I nor anyone else in this thread is under the impression that diesels are inherently superior; I’ve never owned a diesel vehicle and I don’t plan to.
Psst…
You might want to do some research on that.
Take the Jaguar XF as an example.
Comparing the 3.0 Petrol and the 3.0 diesel
The Petrol
0-100km 8.3 seconds
238 HP
293 Nm of Torque
10.5 km to the litre
**
The Diesel**
0-100 7.1 Seconds
275 HP
600 Nm of Torque (yes that’s TWICE as much)
14.7 km to the litre
I must be linking somewhere else than you are RNATB. I am here and here.
Cheapest petrol Edge model recommended price of 8,970.83, cheapest diesel 10,595.83. That’s the 1.25 060 5 Speed 3 door to the 1.4TDCi070 DPF 5 Speed 3 door. So the difference is 1625 pounds, about $2,681. MPG (imperial gallons EU cycle) is 51.4 for the 3 door petrol and 68.9 for the 3 door diesel. To be fair the diesel in this case is peppier. We’ll also compare with the more expensive petrol model, the 1.4 096 3 door, which goes for 9879.16 and gets 42.8 mpg.
So let’s crank the numbers - 3 door petrol 1.25 comes to 280 US gallons of gas/yr which is $1,082.24/yr. 3 door petrol 1.4 comes to 336 US gallons which is $1299.70/yr. The diesel 1.4 comes to 209 US gallons $865.46. So the annual savings is either about $217 or $434 and the price differential is either $2,681 or $1183.
Comparing the cheapest petrol model to the cheapest diesel one the ROI is 12 years. Comparing the cheapest diesel to the next step up petrol model the ROI is actually a very good 2.73 years. So it does matter quite a bit which models we compare. And to be fair, diesels get some pretty good torque.
Or for another example take a venerable US brand in the Chrysler.
The 300C, 3.5 litre V6 delivers a 0-100km timing of 9.9 seconds
Compare that to the diesel’s 8.6 seconds
Fuel consumption? 10.2 km/l for the diesel compared to 9 for the petrol.
Diesels have really come a very very long way from where they used to be.
Nobody is arguing you can’t make a perfectly nice diesel engine. It’s just that they cost more. I can’t find any figures for those two you cite (the 300c isn’t sold in Europe anymore and the Jag doesn’t have a petrol V6 anymore), but I would be willing to bet those were both fairly big dollar options. I have a friend who bought a CRD Jeep Liberty a few years back, which is the same two engines as the 300C, and the diesel cost about $3000 more new (on paper anyways-- in reality he probably could have got a gas one for a lot less since the CRD’s were in demand at the time).
You’re in Europe?
For me, even at a $3000 engine option both vehicles would make very eminent sense.
I travel circa 40,000 km a year, a saving of 400 odd litres translates to somewhere around $800 - not even touching the issue that the starting point of diesel fuel itself is about 15% lower here.
On top of that, for both cars I mentioned, the diesel is getting similiar acceleration figures, and better torque than the V8 versions - which come at a further price premium over even the Diesel.
I know that in partiuclar the Jag is doing very well here - despite a punitive diesel vehicle tax regime (for road tax you pay a “penalty” of $1.25 per cc per annum if you drive a diesel private car)
No, but since the 300c isn’t sold in Europe any more, you can only get it with the Mercedes CRD engine in Australia and Chrysler.au is not a very helpful website.
It sounds like you are one of the people for which diesel makes a great deal of sense. I’ve no qualms with that, I just don’t think it’s good energy policy to push people for whom it does not make sense into buying diesel cars when that money and effort could be better spent elsewhere.
Of course my dark secret is that I love diesel cars. I’ve happily owned several old Mercedes diesels and a couple VW’s and diesel trucks. But, realistically, I liked them more because they were quirky and fun to rattle around in, not for any practical reason (well, except the trucks which were awesome for towing stuff). I would secretly love it if the government passed a mandatory diesel car act (preferably retroactive so they’d have to import funky older diesels), but you have to be realistic about both the advantages and drawbacks of diesel.
What do you see at the drawbacks?
The only one I see right now is the expense - all the others I see are easily solvable.
That said, I don’t believe that doing it by government fiat is the way to go about this sort of issue, but I do see that a big push towards diesel is a great interim solution to cut down CO2 emissions.
More confirmation that this is wrong, specifically for BMW in the UK.
BMW 120d SE Coupe
2.0 litre turbo-diesel
173 bhp
53 mpg
£24795
Diesel price £1.42/litre
BMW 120i SE Coupe
2.0 litre petrol
168 bhp
43 mpg
£23965
Petrol price £1.35/litre
I only do about 12,000 miles/year but even then it would only take a little over 3 years to recoup the difference in starting price.
The cheapest petrol model is a 1.2L, and the cheapest diesel is a 1.4L. That’s why I compared the most expensive ones, which have the same displacement.
I’m on your first link. I’m not sure how the second one helps.
I said equivalent; the petrol Jag is normally aspirated, while the diesel is turbocharged.
The Good:
I’ve been working in Germany for the past year and have enjoyed driving the diesel VW Golf Wagon that I have been provided with. Enough torque to negotiate the hills here in the Black Forest with ease, and still capable of comfortably cruising at 180 Kph on the Autobahn.
The ugly:
Houses and buildings along main thoroughfares have noticeable soot staining up to approximately 5 feet above the ground. Lots of discussion going on about particulates.
The bad:
While switching the entire US fleet to diesel would result in a 20% reduction in consumption at the pump. It would apparently increase our consumption of crude by about 30% since we currently get about two times as much gasoline per barrel as diesel.
That’s not quite accurate. We refine twice as much gasoline per barrel as diesel, but that’s because demand for gasoline is twice as great.
If you used the whole barrel, you could make something like 85% of the quantity of diesel as opposed to gasoline/petrol, and it has about 15% greater energy content (hence the greater fuel efficiency of diesel engines). Unfortunately, low-sulphur diesel requires more of the barrel than the regular stuff (about 25% more than the equivalent amount of gasoline).