Forum Discussion
APT wrote:
I feel so much better now that I've blocked HybridHunter. Happy Friday!
x2- I feel so much better now that I've blocked HybridHunter. Happy Friday!
NinerBikes wrote:
I admire the efficiency of rolling my foot into the throttle slowly and feeling that rubberband acceleration effect to pass, going from 60 to 80 mph. That's what a TDI does so well. To me, it is well worth the premium.
The newer direct injected turbo gas engines feel exactly the same way. With newer technology you can have that great driving experience with either diesel or gas.Hybridhunter wrote:
also....
"Another way to look at this is with respect to fuel energy (the classic engineering approach) - because a gallon of diesel has 12.5 % more energy than a gallon of gasoline. MPG(gasoline-equivalent) = MPG(diesel) / 1.125
Based on energy, the RWD Dodge Ram 3.0 L with 23 MPG (diesel) combined rating would be equivalent to 20.4 MPG (gasoline-equivalent) combined rating.
The RWD Ford (2.7 L turbo gasoline) with a 22 MPG combined rating is slightly better.
"
Ya
How I choose to look at it... I've owned diesel almost continuously since 1981. VW jetta, '83 Audi5000TD, '88 Ford F250 w 7.3 Navistar/IH, '96 passat tdi, '98 jetta tdi, 2002 jetta GLS TDI, 2012 passat tdi se 6 manual, 2012 Touareg sport tdi, 2013 Touareg Sport TDI, 2014 Passat TDI tdi se 6 DSG.
I don't care what it costs new, or what the maintenance costs are, nothing compares to driving the torque of a turbo diesel, I pay gladly for the premium in maintenance to do so. I admire the efficiency of rolling my foot into the throttle slowly and feeling that rubberband acceleration effect to pass, going from 60 to 80 mph. That's what a TDI does so well. To me, it is well worth the premium.
Choose your poison, but don't rag on another for their choices. Their money, they are free to spend it as they choose.
Turbodiesels aren't for everyone... they don't need to be.Hybridhunter wrote:
Bionic Man wrote:
At this point, I'm not even sure what your argument is, other than a vendetta against Chrysler in genral and the EcoDiesel in particular.
It is a simple equation. If a consumer wants a truck that gets the BEST MPG of anything out there - mid size or full size - that has more capability than the vast majority of what the average consumer needs, the EcoDiesel is available
If a consumer wants to race from stop sign to stop sign, or be the first 1500/150 up a pass with a loaded trailer, buy the EcoBoost (or Chevy 5.3 or RAM 5.7)
I am a MOPAR guy, but I appreciate the EcoBoost. It is a very good towing engine with power comparable to a V8. But it clearly IS NOT a leap foreward in MPG.
What is great about America, you have choices. Buy what suits your needs best.
You are way off track. First off I have owned an equal number of Dodges, as I have owned Fords. Brand does not matter to me, but they each take their turn to shine, and alternatively to put out good and bad products..
Who cares what mpg either gets? Cost per mile, cost to own and operate are the useful numbers. So why not pick the more capable truck that costs the same to run?
I think you are the one who needs to read a little more. Sacrificing EVERY aspect of performance in a TRUCK, to get mileage only good enough to pay off the more expensive fuel, and not the optional engine is donkey economics
Maybe one day a truck will exist that gets 200mpg, and uses unicorn tears, but it will "get the best mileage". Maybe it too will have 1980's levels of performance. It would be a great truck of the year.
Maybee you should look at the facts "3.0 diesel 8 speed auto, 3:92 limited slip, 420lb torque" all this at 28mpg. where's the problem?
mm49- also....
"Another way to look at this is with respect to fuel energy (the classic engineering approach) - because a gallon of diesel has 12.5 % more energy than a gallon of gasoline. MPG(gasoline-equivalent) = MPG(diesel) / 1.125
Based on energy, the RWD Dodge Ram 3.0 L with 23 MPG (diesel) combined rating would be equivalent to 20.4 MPG (gasoline-equivalent) combined rating.
The RWD Ford (2.7 L turbo gasoline) with a 22 MPG combined rating is slightly better.
"
Ya Hybridhunter wrote:
ib516 wrote:
I'm not going to bother as I doubt rational thought could penetrate your blue oval glasses. Those who use logic and rational thinking that read my post will see the facts though, and I posted it more for them than you.
Your logic is highlighted in the above text. Easy to tell the business people from the others on this Forum.
You get an "A" in Obamanomics
Feel free to explain how more expensive to buy, own, and operate with inferior performance adds up. You won't, you'll change the topic, but you can't simply refute the above. End of story.
Well, every comparison has said that comparable equiped the 3 brands are priced about the same, so it isn't more expensive to buy. It will get more than 20% better MPG than your choice of truck, so on AVERAGE, it will be less expensive in fuel. I don't have the info on operating costs, but I would be they are similar. And as far as performance, the EB has an advantage there, but again, the question is how many people drive with their foot to the floor all day long? Seems you are in the minority there.
Why don't we talk about resale value of diesel vs gas? Across the board, it is higher for the diesel, doesn't matter if it is a Duramax, CTD, or Passat. The only place it might not be is in the 6.0.ib516 wrote:
I'm not going to bother as I doubt rational thought could penetrate your blue oval glasses. Those who use logic and rational thinking that read my post will see the facts though, and I posted it more for them than you.
Your logic is highlighted in the above text. Easy to tell the business people from the others on this Forum.
You get an "A" in Obamanomics
Feel free to explain how more expensive to buy, own, and operate with inferior performance adds up. You won't, you'll change the topic, but you can't simply refute the above. End of story.Bionic Man wrote:
At this point, I'm not even sure what your argument is, other than a vendetta against Chrysler in genral and the EcoDiesel in particular.
It is a simple equation. If a consumer wants a truck that gets the BEST MPG of anything out there - mid size or full size - that has more capability than the vast majority of what the average consumer needs, the EcoDiesel is available
If a consumer wants to race from stop sign to stop sign, or be the first 1500/150 up a pass with a loaded trailer, buy the EcoBoost (or Chevy 5.3 or RAM 5.7)
I am a MOPAR guy, but I appreciate the EcoBoost. It is a very good towing engine with power comparable to a V8. But it clearly IS NOT a leap foreward in MPG.
What is great about America, you have choices. Buy what suits your needs best.
You are way off track. First off I have owned an equal number of Dodges, as I have owned Fords. Brand does not matter to me, but they each take their turn to shine, and alternatively to put out good and bad products..
Who cares what mpg either gets? Cost per mile, cost to own and operate are the useful numbers. So why not pick the more capable truck that costs the same to run?
I think you are the one who needs to read a little more. Sacrificing EVERY aspect of performance in a TRUCK, to get mileage only good enough to pay off the more expensive fuel, and not the optional engine is donkey economics
Maybe one day a truck will exist that gets 200mpg, and uses unicorn tears, but it will "get the best mileage". Maybe it too will have 1980's levels of performance. It would be a great truck of the year.- Went and visited service at Dependable Dodge... and an oil filter for these bad boys is $60, an oil change $200. The Cummins oil filter was $16.
