X3 or 5 Series Touring or...

[kaisen]

As much as Pelicans love diesels, used examples bring large premiums over their gas counterparts and diesel is currently 90 cents more per gallon here in MN. It will NEVER pencil out to be an economical choice. If you'd like to pay more because you like the driving characteristics, like abundant torque, that's your choice. But any gains in fuel economy are more than cancelled out by the cost of ULSD fuel, the urea treatments, extra maintenance, more expensive parts, more complex systems, and the extra up-front costs to buy one. YMMV

[aigel]

The premium paid for the diesel engine can be recovered in full at time of sale. Yes, $3-4k will be tied up. In case of the VW the resale is so bad without the TDI, that I would not consider a VW without it. If you do open yourself to all makes and models and just try to find the cheapest solution, the VW TDI does not make economic sense indeed.

G

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by aigel

The premium paid for the diesel engine can be recovered in full at time of sale. Yes, $3-4k will be tied up. In case of the VW the resale is so bad without the TDI, that I would not consider a VW without it. If you do open yourself to all makes and models and just try to find the cheapest solution, the VW TDI does not make economic sense indeed.

G

The VW TDI is the exception to the arguement. The premium when NEW isn't too bad. They're also a very high volume vehicle. Not true of very many diesel SUVs or other wagons.

Resale should always factor into the equation. Pay $3000 more when you buy it used, get $3000 more when you sell it used -- all is good. But when fuel costs are actually higher, maintenance is higher, urea fill ups, smelly fuel pumps, expensive repairs, etc may negate anything you thought would be a positive. Most people don't see past the extra few mpgs. In some cases they are nicer to drive, so there's that too.

Again, the VW TDI (used or new) comes closest to making a good arguement for diesels.

[aigel]

What I find interesting is that the good fuel economy gas engines now are getting more complicated as well, with the introduction of direct injection and turbo charging.

G

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by aigel

What I find interesting is that the good fuel economy gas engines now are getting more complicated as well, with the introduction of direct injection and turbo charging.

G

Complexity is why I didn't buy an Ecoboost when we purchased a 2012 F150. With the plan being that we keep this as our family car until at least 100,000 miles, I was very concerned about the longevity of a twin turbo direct injected V6. The complexity of the motor, along with some internet reports of issues, was enough to buy the 5.0 V8 and take the 2 MPG highway hit.

[A930Rocket]

I've been on the fence about a Jetta SportWagen TDI or a Honda Accord with the four cyl for my wife. The Honda is cheaper by several thousand and gets just a few MPG less than the Jetta. The Jetta is a wagon and would be nice for all the stuff my wife packs when she takes our son to out of state swim meets. She drives about 20K a year as well which might help justify it.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by kaisen

As much as Pelicans love diesels, used examples bring large premiums over their gas counterparts and diesel is currently 90 cents more per gallon here in MN. It will NEVER pencil out to be an economical choice. If you'd like to pay more because you like the driving characteristics, like abundant torque, that's your choice. But any gains in fuel economy are more than cancelled out by the cost of ULSD fuel, the urea treatments, extra maintenance, more expensive parts, more complex systems, and the extra up-front costs to buy one. YMMV

Diesel is about the same price as gas in CA., $3.85 at a station I drove by today. That would be a great local price, average in my 'hood is about $4.20. Premium is about $3.90 everywhere right now.

Is gas that much cheaper in MN., or diesel higher or ? That's a HUGE price delta and would certainly work against any argument for buying a diesel. That argument does not exist here, other than rare times when diesel was more than gas. It's never been near 90 cents different, though.

[A930Rocket]

Diesel is about 35-40 cents more than the premium we are paying now, but 70 cents more than regular.

Originally Posted by speeder

Diesel is about the same price as gas in CA., $3.85 at a station I drove by today. That would be a great local price, average in my 'hood is about $4.20. Premium is about $3.90 everywhere right now.

Is gas that much cheaper in MN., or diesel higher or ? That's a HUGE price delta and would certainly work against any argument for buying a diesel. That argument does not exist here, other than rare times when diesel was more than gas. It's never been near 90 cents different, though.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

Diesel is about the same price as gas in CA., $3.85 at a station I drove by today. That would be a great local price, average in my 'hood is about $4.20. Premium is about $3.90 everywhere right now.

Is gas that much cheaper in MN., or diesel higher or ?

87 octane regular gasoline is $3.049, diesel is $3.999 as of this morning

Diesel here stays between $0.70 and $1.10 more per gallon all winter

Comparing a X5 35D (diesel) at EPA 22 mpg combined to a X5 35i (gas) at EPA 19mpg combined:

DIESEL: 15,000 annual miles @ 22 mpg = 682 gals @ $3.99 (12/10 national average) = $2721

GAS: 15,000 annual miles @ 19 mpg = 789 gals @ $3.35 (12/10 national average) = $3150

So you can save $429 a year with the diesel. Base price of diesel X5 35D: $56,700. Base price of gas X5 35i: $47,500. Even if the apples to apples equipped price delta was only $5000, it would take 10 years to pay for the diesel option, resale notwithstanding. Base price to base price it would take more than 20 years.

As always, YMMV

[speeder]

Originally Posted by kaisen

87 octane regular gasoline is $3.049, diesel is $3.999 as of this morning

Diesel here stays between $0.70 and $1.10 more per gallon all winter

Comparing a X5 35D (diesel) at EPA 22 mpg combined to a X5 35i (gas) at EPA 19mpg combined:

DIESEL: 15,000 annual miles @ 22 mpg = 682 gals @ $3.99 (12/10 national average) = $2721

GAS: 15,000 annual miles @ 19 mpg = 789 gals @ $3.35 (12/10 national average) = $3150

So you can save $429 a year with the diesel. Base price of diesel X5 35D: $56,700. Base price of gas X5 35i: $47,500. Even if the apples to apples equipped price delta was only $5000, it would take 10 years to pay for the diesel option, resale notwithstanding. Base price to base price it would take more than 20 years.

As always, YMMV

"Resale notwithstanding"...this is where your diesel vs. gas arguments always fall apart. Resale withstanding, the diesel is probably cheaper within a week after you drive it out of the dealer, fuel costs notwithstanding. IOW, even if you don't burn a single gallon in either vehicle. You cannot remove resale value from any *cost of ownership* calculation, it's one of if not the single biggest part of the C.O.O. when buying an expensive luxury vehicle brand new like your examples above.

That said, I had a GF with a 6-cylinder X5 that I bought plenty of fuel for. It would not get 19 mpg if you pushed it off a cliff. That's a joke. Plus, a fair comparison from a performance/MSRP angle would be an X5d vs. a V-8 X5. And diesel is the same price as gas here. We don't have $3 a gallon regular, (and all new X5s take premium anyways). But we have sunshine and the ocean.

In the real world, where people buy expensive new luxury SUVs and then sell or trade them in 3 years, the diesel pays for itself completely and then some. Plus, you get to drive a modern diesel and spend a LOT less on fuel, if you actually drive the thing.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

...That said, I had a GF with a 6-cylinder X5 that I bought plenty of fuel for. It would not get 19 mpg if you pushed it off a cliff. That's a joke. Plus, a fair comparison from a performance/MSRP angle would be an X5d vs. a V-8 X5.......In the real world, where people buy expensive new luxury SUVs and then sell or trade them in 3 years, the diesel pays for itself completely and then some. Plus, you get to drive a modern diesel and spend a LOT less on fuel, if you actually drive the thing.

I doubt your GF's X5 was a new 2012 35i...you know, the one with the turbo and eight speed automatic?

EPA ratings are 16 mpg city and 23 mpg highway

The turbo six 35i has 300 horsepower and 300 lb-ft (typically rated conservatively)

The diesel 35d has 265 horsepower and 425 lb-ft

You think the diesel better compares to the V8 X5??!!?? You're dreaming

The V8 50i offers 400 hp and 450 lb-ft. I don't think a diesel with two less gears can overcome a 135 horsepower deficit, nor 25 lb-ft less torque. The V8 will embarass the diesel, it's a monster.

You're also completely wrong on resale. The 2012 X5 35d's bring mid-forties $$$ at auction. The 2012 X5 35i's bring mid-forties $$$ at auction. Apples to apples in every way (options, colors, miles, condition) the diesel will fetch a $1500 premium over the turbo six gas. Yet it cost $5000-7500 more initially. Great investment

If any of you don't believe me, I'll buy one for you. Money meet mouth.

And the new BMWs "recommend" premium fuel for best performance, but will happily run 87 octane regular fuel forever.

[speeder]

To achieve the performance or (close to) the mpg #s you post, they need to run on their recommended fuel. Which is premium. They are designed and engineered to run on 91 octane fuel, period. When you say that they will "happily run" on 87 octane, what you really mean is that they have safeguards built in to their engine management system to reduce performance and prevent internal damage when run on lower octane fuel than they were designed for. You cannot quote their HP and torque numbers and then in the next breath claim that you can run them on regular fuel "happily". You know that.

The turbo gas 6 is missing 125 lbs. of torque vs. the diesel, yet you claim that it's the comparable model. The V-8 is 25 lbs. different, and peaks at a higher RPM. Torque #s are the only ones that matter on a vehicle like this, unless you're planning on racing it. Torque is what turns the drive shaft. 425 lbs. is a HUGE difference from 300 lbs., with better fuel mileage to boot. I would rather have the X5d over the V-8 one 8 ways from Sunday. What's the EPA mileage on that one? Compared to the gas 6? There is no comparison.

You know that all diesel engines have a deceptively low HP # in relation to torque, (and performance in a truck-type vehicle). I would not want to own a V-8 gas X5 if it was a gift. The diesel is on the top of my want list.

[aigel]

Originally Posted by A930Rocket

I've been on the fence about a Jetta SportWagen TDI or a Honda Accord with the four cyl for my wife. The Honda is cheaper by several thousand and gets just a few MPG less than the Jetta. The Jetta is a wagon and would be nice for all the stuff my wife packs when she takes our son to out of state swim meets. She drives about 20K a year as well which might help justify it.

If she spends a lot of long distance interstate miles, the Jetta will beat the EPA milage by far. Over 50 mpg can be expected out of the TDI Jetta at a steady 65 mph if the terrain is flat.

G

[A930Rocket]

Yes, it's mostly highway miles and flat.

Now the question us what will it cost to buy one. Looking online at Internet pricing seems to offer the best starting point.

Still need to iron out what the most is to pay.

EDIT: Sorry for the thread hijack!

Quote de A930Rocket

I've been on the fence about a Jetta SportWagen TDI or a Honda Accord with the four cyl for my wife. The Honda is cheaper by several thousand and gets just a few MPG less than the Jetta. The Jetta is a wagon and would be nice for all the stuff my wife packs when she takes our son to out of state swim meets. She drives about 20K a year as well which might help justify it.

If she spends a lot of long distance interstate miles, the Jetta will beat the EPA milage by far. Over 50 mpg can be expected out of the TDI Jetta at a steady 65 mph if the terrain is flat.



G

[aigel]

Originally Posted by A930Rocket

Yes, it's mostly highway miles and flat.

Now the question us what will it cost to buy one. Looking online at Internet pricing seems to offer the best starting point.

Still need to iron out what the most is to pay.

I paid a few hundred under dealer invoice (per Edmunds). Maybe Eric has some input. I beat up 3 dealers in the area until I found the best price. Not surprisingly, the dealer farthest away from L.A. had the best deal.

Sorry Don for derailing your thread.

G

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

To achieve the performance or (close to) the mpg #s you post, they need to run on their recommended fuel. Which is premium. They are designed and engineered to run on 91 octane fuel, period. When you say that they will "happily run" on 87 octane, what you really mean is that they have safeguards built in to their engine management system to reduce performance and prevent internal damage when run on lower octane fuel than they were designed for. You cannot quote their HP and torque numbers and then in the next breath claim that you can run them on regular fuel "happily". You know that.

The turbo gas 6 is missing 125 lbs. of torque vs. the diesel, yet you claim that it's the comparable model. The V-8 is 25 lbs. different, and peaks at a higher RPM. Torque #s are the only ones that matter on a vehicle like this, unless you're planning on racing it. Torque is what turns the drive shaft. 425 lbs. is a HUGE difference from 300 lbs., with better fuel mileage to boot. I would rather have the X5d over the V-8 one 8 ways from Sunday. What's the EPA mileage on that one? Compared to the gas 6? There is no comparison.

You know that all diesel engines have a deceptively low HP # in relation to torque, (and performance in a truck-type vehicle). I would not want to own a V-8 gas X5 if it was a gift. The diesel is on the top of my want list.

The 2012 X5 35i (gas) does 0-60 in 6.1 seconds, the quarter mile in 14.6 secs @ 92.5 mph
The 2012 X5 35d (dsl) does 0-60 in 6.9 seconds, the quarter mile in 15.2 secs @ 89.5 mph
Engine ratings aside, the gas truck is measureably faster than the diesel
The seat of your pants can be wrong, not the first time
The single-turbo 3.0L in the 335i, 535i, X5 35i, etc is underrated at 300/300, and most everyone knows it.

Modern turbocharged engines are different than high-compression naturally aspirated engines when it comes to octane needs. In a boosted motor, the need for octane has everything to do with boost levels. Lower octane? Less max boost. Higher octane? More max boost. Any time you're not pushing boost? Octane simply isn't a factor. There simply is NO predetonation at partial throttle, low boost in these motors. Nothing to retard. Just less boost under WOT. So, no, the 35i will not get better fuel economy running 92 octane vs 87 octane. More power due to higher boost? Sure. But ONLY when you're heavy on the throttle. For 95% of driving and drivers, 87 octane is perfectly fine in a 35i. Going to tow? Put more expensive 92 OCT in the tank that trip as you'll appreciate the extra power from extra boost.

I like driving the 35d just as much as the next guy. Torque is a wonderful feeling. I'm just not prepared to pay more for the truck, more for fuel, more for maintenance, more for repairs, and equal depreciation (regardless of perceptions) for it.

[speeder]

That's impressive performance and fuel economy from the gas six. And it almost seems to defy physics, considering the weight and frontal area + AWD drag. They must have re-invented the wheel with that motor(?).

The V-8 is a pig.

[speeder]

I would love to have a 405hp, 6-speed manual '09 or '10 Cayenne GTS, but it's an honest 11mpg on premium city driver. That's its EPA rating, IIRC. Plus it would suck in the snow unless you completely change the tires and rims.

In the real world, driving a powerful gas SUV in the city is a fuel intensive endeavor. Even with a diesel, but it's closer to sane. I would spend a fortune on gas.

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by speeder

That's impressive performance and fuel economy from the gas six. And it almost seems to defy physics, considering the weight and frontal area + AWD drag. They must have re-invented the wheel with that motor(?).

The V-8 is a pig.

The X5 50i (400hp/450lb-ft) does 0-60 in 4.9 seconds
The X5 50i is EPA rated 14 mpg city and 20 mpg freeway

Neither figure is very piggish, imho




The X5 50i with the optional M-sport package adds 40hp and 50lb-ft and does 0-60 in 4.6 seconds
The X5M monster has 555hp and does 0-60 in 4.0 secs

These are Cayenne GTS and Cayenne Turbo S competitors
Again, not piggish in terms of performance, but if you buy one you likely don't give a rat's ass about fuel economy

[speeder]

I know a couple people with new X5 and X6 M models. They supposedly get the worst fuel mileage of any vehicle ever sold. And that observation is coming from people who definitely don't have to sweat paying their gas credit card. I'd guess that 14 city rated V-8 gets closer to 10mpg in real world driving.