Tom_M wrote:
The gist of the article is that depreciation is the key factor.
"Although the combined costs of insurance, repairs, maintenance and fees and taxes, are higher for nearly all diesel models, the lower depreciation values and lower fuel costs of diesel vehicles contribute to a lower total cost of ownershipโespecially among passenger cars and SUVs."
I think the REAL gist of the article is the disclaimer below:
"Belzowski says, however, that diesels are not without their challenges, including the potential increase in the cost of diesel fuel compared to gasoline, and the resulting need for diesels to continue to improve their fuel economy to maintain their total-cost-of-ownership advantage."
Also Diesel in many parts of the country is as much as a Dollar more than Gas. This extra cost, plus the cost of more oil, more filters, more frequent oil changes means that the gain in MPG of diesels is easily offset by these extra costs. Further the outcome of this article could very well be negated simply by geography. Where one lives. A diesel owner in California is not going to save money, while a diesel owner in a cheap fuel state such as South Carolina may well.
I see no where in the article where these issues are addressed. This makes, for me at least, he Premise of the article faulty, leading to an almost predetermined conclusion.
This is to say nothing of the issue of comparing the resale value of Diesel trucks with Volkswagen Jettas (in averaging).
Despite the Underwriters link to the automotive manufacturing world it must be kept in mind that Bosch makes many MORE fuel injection systems and other parts for GASOLINE engines than it does for diesels.
