Ram 2500 Cummins Furel Mileage

Grit dog wrote:

4X4Dodger wrote:

Greene728 wrote:

SouthpawHD wrote:
Saw an article in Truck Trend where they reviewed the fuel mileage from a gasser and diesel, the upfront costs differences, and maintenance costs of each. They estimated it is close to 100,000 miles for the breakeven of owning a gasser over a diesel in terms of overall costs. I don't believe this was brand specific comparison, just overall general ownership costs.

Don't believe everything you read..;)

There is a fundamental issue with these comparisons that is not really addressed. They are based on the Assumption that you do not own either a gas or diesel engined truck to begin with.

But if you have equity/trade in value in a gas engine and move up to the diesel the equation and the results would be different. As it will be for me when and if I trade my 2014 for a 2016.

What in the world of cheese does equity have to do with it? That makes no sense. Not saying the 100k break even point is right or wrong but apples to apples, a dollar is still a dollar whether it's in physical property (trade in), cash down payment, keeping it a low mile garage queen so it sells for more $ down the road, or any other form or current or acquired equity.
With what you said, I could make the claim that a diesel is SOOO much cheaper to own because I traded in a paid off C6 corvette and out the door the truck only cost me $10k!
So that is totally better than the guy who financed $35k with zero down on his gasser truck.
Dang those diesels are cheap if you look at it that way!

First off I think you are misunderstanding the study, the issue and my post. Let me try to clarify it.

There are two types of expenses with a vehicle (and other things as well)

FIXED COSTS

and

OPERATING COSTS

The cost of the initial purchase and of the engine is a FIXED COST.

The cost of Fuel/oil/def etc are OPERATING costs.

This was about which was cheaper to OPERATE. The study quoted (often) is about which is Cheaper to OWN. Ie to Buy outright (no trade in and there IS VALUE in your trade in) and to keep until paid off.

My contention is that the study ignores the Value of the Trade in in the BUYING part of the equation.

Now to put this in a different light let me give this example:

The Diesel Engine in the Ram is a $9,900. (approx) option. But that is part of the FIXED Expenses not the operating ones. So if I consider the Fixed expenses of the two trucks together and their overall price difference The 5.7 litre Hemi also has a Fixed expense cost built in to it but not necessarily known.

But if the TERM of finance and the Payments are roughly EQUAL between the two trucks the Fixed Expense of the Diesel really is not an issue. Secondly it is the OPERATING expenses that will continue beyond the time of the Payment part of the Fixed expense.

So If the money I put down on my first truck, the 5.7 Hemi (10K in CASH) has some residual value along with my equity in the 20 months I have had the truck then that equity rolls over to the new truck. Which I contend makes the Study's findings suspect as they do not reflect real world economics.

Now the Cheapest Car I ever OWNED was my BMW 740iL it was a 1995 bought new. But in the long run of ownership. It's overall price of $76,000.00 and change, plus operating costs, which were very low as I did not have to replace even so much as a light bulb in the first 100,000 miles, compared to what I got for it when I sold it all made it cheaper to OWN than my Volvo Station Wagon from years earlier.

My contention was that the study is flawed in terms of "real world" economics. However there is no way for them to accurately include the variances of dealer pricing, discounts, differences in one persons ability to negotiate vs anothers and many other factors which bear directly on the FIXED costs.