U of M study

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

U of M study

[IdaD]

You can get a 2.5 gallon jug of DEF at Walmart for about $8.50, or at some truck stop pumps for $2-3/gallon.

[whjco]

Several months ago I sold my 2000 Ford E350 7.3 van with around 135k mileage on it. Since it was a business vehicle, maintenance and fuel records were kept on it. I paid for the extra cost of the diesel engine over three times in fuel consumption savings and that was taking into account the 15 quart oil changes. The only repair to the engine during that time was a water pump and a vacuum pump. When I sold the van, I got my $3000 diesel option back so I came out $12,000 ahead by ordering the van with a diesel.

I didn't keep such accurate records on my 2000 Excursion 7.3 but my experience with it was similar.

The 15-year jump to the 2500 Ram Cummins seems to be having about the same results except for 3 jugs of DEF in 8k of driving which cost about $40. However, the new truck has much more power, is infinitely more comfortable, and is averaging about 5 mpg better.

Bill J., Lexington, KY

[hvac]

ROI is a relative term, for me with our custom 21 RBS, I can get away with an eco diesel with a 3.92 rear end. My current F150 is 8 years old and avg mileage is 9-10 towing and 13 overall empty. She has 170k miles and a reliable beast. The ECO could potentially double my mileage and do the job. I think anyway. With that and another 8 years and anticipated 200k miles of use, 80% everytday and 20% towing, the fuel savings could be in the 40k range or more depending on fuel pricing looking out over 8-10 years.. thats real ROI and resale is not even a factor.

This exposes the importance a comfortabe RV that can be towed by the newest technology in a half ton truck. I am excited about the Ford and Nissan with plans for a diesel in full size half ton.They all need to catch up on 8 speed or more trannys. Next will be diesel hybird, possibly 30 plus mpg or more. The 3/4 ton and above have no incentives to improve and thats ok. Purpose built, and if you need the big rv then you pay to play. Just remember that over time and as miles roll by, that number can be significant.... Just sayin

[dshelley]

wing_zealot wrote:
For the life of me I can't figure out why diesel owner's continuously start these threads for the umpteen billionth time. It's like they need to repeatedly keep justify their decision to buy a diesel. You don't need anyone else's permission to buy a diesel. If your happy - great! If you're trying to prove something, you're not succeeding, so give it up. Those that want a diesel own a diesel, those that don't, don't. They remind me of hawkers at the county fair. The more threads they open the more I suspect they are trying to sell snake oil.

You react, what? 5 times to a thread you, for the life of you, can't understand why it was started?

[transamz9]

wing_zealot wrote:
Well Gee, guess what, I found a study that says just the opposite. If you drive a diesel Volkswagen Jetta well you can save a few thousand dollars. You drive diesel pickup truck, well you diesel guys may not want to read this.
Diesel Executive Summary
Diesel Analysis

The elements behind the data

By the way, here is your 2013 U of M Study which basically says the same thing and cites Vincentric as the source. Real U of M Study not some generic write up about it

Anyone using a Jetta to pull their RV?

HAHAHA! Why are justifying????

[wing_zealot]

Well Gee, guess what, I found a study that says just the opposite. If you drive a diesel Volkswagen Jetta well you can save a few thousand dollars. You drive diesel pickup truck, well you diesel guys may not want to read this.
Diesel Executive Summary
Diesel Analysis

The elements behind the data

By the way, here is your 2013 U of M Study which basically says the same thing and cites Vincentric as the source. Real U of M Study not some generic write up about it

Anyone using a Jetta to pull their RV?

[mich800]

vic46 wrote:
Expecting a return on a depreciating asset, such as a vehicle, is folly. Vehicles in particular depreciate at a very rapid rate until they reach a point that the amount of depreciation is negligible. The diesel vehicles perhaps depreciate at a slower rate. Can the operating cost saving of a diesel offset the cost of the diesel option is the question. Or alternatively, can the disposal value of the diesel exceed that of a comparable gasser that has been maintained and operated in a manner consistent with that of a diesel of set the option cost of the diesel? Or, to further confuse the issue, some combination of both! The proffered study indicates the offset is the case. I however am a little sceptical. A corroborating independent study is required in my opinion.

I recall an axiom, "Trust But Verify!"

Mixing operating costs and capital costs is a recipe for disaster. They are not the same and therefore must be addressed independent of one another. Hence the comment regarding some combination of both the capital and operations costs analysis.

That is exactly correct. There is no ROI on a vehicle because there is no measurable "R". Unless of course this is a work vehicle that generates income to quantify "R". Otherwise we are just calculating net cost. And I think that is what this study was attempting to address.

[Community Alumni]

transamz9 wrote:

proxim2020 wrote:
From looking at the original study back in 2013, there really isn't much of a difference in the depreciation gap between gas and diesels at the 5 year mark.

Silverado - 9% advantage for diesels.
Sierra - 10% advantage for diesels.
Ram - 1% advantage for diesels.
Ford - 13% advantage for gas.

When it comes to cars and SUVs the gap is more significant. With trucks, not so much. I'd imagine each year beyond the 5 year mark the gap slowly shrinks down to irrelevant.

So what you are saying is I get to drive a more capable truck for the same end cost.

Some argue that one advantage of diesels is that they hold on to a ton their value while their gas counterparts values tank like a rock. At the 5 year mark they've pretty much depreciated at about the same rate with the edge going towards most diesels. Well besides for the Fords where the gas engines did better. At the 7-10 year I'd imagine that any advantage to either side would be long gone. The numbers seem to support those who say, "Well you paid more, so of course you'll get more back," when it comes to trucks.

[transamz9]

wing_zealot wrote:
Oh transamz I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not bothered at all about you're studies. I think you guys are a hoot the way y'all feel the need to justify your diesel.

These are not my studies and I personally don't have to justify my diesel because it is a simple fact that a gas truck like mine would not handle my towed load. The combined GVWR's of the two trailers I tow in tandem is 20,XXX# and they are loaded close to that 100% on the time.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that I'm pulling a load that a gas truck wouldn't handle day in day out with my diesel and doing it for the same if not less money in the long run that a gas truck would have cost me. People buy diesel trucks for many reasons. Some have to have them, some just do it because they want to but the point that is being made here is that in most they cost no more than the gas version to operate. Now if I were to try and tell you that I buy my Corvettes instead of a Camry because of fuel mileage then you could say I was trying to justify my Corvette.;)

[4X4Dodger]

Perrysburg Dodgeboy wrote:

bid_time wrote:
Show me the data behind the study or it ain't worth the paper it's written on. Once I get the data I'll bet I can find several dozen flaws and self serving assumptions. Case in point no where in the hokey write up did they mention the interest you earn when you leave that $8,000 invested or the additional interest you pay when you finance that $8K. That's finance 101.

You live in Mich. goto U of M and tell them they are full of cow excrement! Being a Buckeye fan I already knew that though! Go Bucks Blue $ucks! LOL

I am afraid bid_time is right. Until you read the actual study and see what they left out and what they included and how they arrived at their conclusions the study is just one of hundreds of thousands that mean really very little. It may turn out they are right or it may turn out they have left out some important data or used outdated statistics or made assumptions that just are not that supportable in the real world. Just because it's done by some grad students at U of M does not mean its Gospel.

[Perrysburg_Dodg]

bid_time wrote:
Show me the data behind the study or it ain't worth the paper it's written on. Once I get the data I'll bet I can find several dozen flaws and self serving assumptions. Case in point no where in the hokey write up did they mention the interest you earn when you leave that $8,000 invested or the additional interest you pay when you finance that $8K. That's finance 101.

You live in Mich. goto U of M and tell them they are full of cow excrement! Being a Buckeye fan I already knew that though! Go Bucks Blue $ucks! LOL

[FishOnOne]

Old-Biscuit wrote:
I sold my gas grocery getter and bought a diesel to tow..........simple


I have never bought a vehicle on perceived 'return'


I only buy to fill a need.

Well said...

[Grit_dog]

Soooo many factors involved with this type of analysis, it's not even possible to count the different scenarios.
You can make the numbers go either way based on care, maint, luck, driving conditions, the economy, mechanical aptitude, et etc

[ShinerBock]

wing_zealot wrote:
I think you guys are a hoot the way y'all feel the need to justify your diesel.

Funny, I feel the same way about you getting all butt hurt just because the report does not fit what you want to be true just so you can feel better about your buying decision.