$30k, 30+mpg, luxury - possible?

[FoolKiller]

I know a guy who took a FIAT Punto 1.2 (petrol) on a track. That doesn't automatically make it fun...

As I said, they can be fast (the R10 and 908 are faster, regulations notwithstanding, than their petrol counterparts). They can handle well. I'm not saying otherwise. But a diesel car is a microwave - you can get hot food out of it and sure it's nommy, but it's a device to take the chore out of making your dinner... Some don't regard cooking as a chore - I sometimes do (which is why I have a microwave). Some do regard driving as a chore - I never do (which is why I don't have a diesel).

I edited my post because I saw you were posting while I posted. Same enjoyment for less cost does not suddenly make it a tool or a chore.

 

[Famine]

So, I have a Golf/Rabbit, which I love to drive. I have fun with it. I do pleasure trips, take the backroads home because they are more fun, etc. You know, all the stuff people who enjoy driving do. If they gave us a TDI version here in the states I would likely make that my next car. Same pleasure, same fun, same attitude, only my driving expense has been lowered. How does that make it a tool?

I edited my post because I saw you were posting while I posted. Same enjoyment for less cost does not suddenly make it a tool or a chore.

It's a compromise - and it's not the same car. Oh, sure, the power figures might be about the same, the acceleration figures might be about the same (probably the diesel will be quicker, as a function of torque), the top speeds might be about the same (probably the petrol will be faster, as a function of gearing and a 5krpm limit) and it'll look the same from the outside, but it won't drive quite the same.

If fun is your main concern, you'd get the petrol. If fun isn't your main concern, you'd get the diesel. It's head (diesel) ruling heart (petrol) - just like our heads tell us to get automatics but we end up with manuals... There's nothing wrong with that - just that I would never get a diesel or an auto unless there was no other choice or if I needed a tool for a job.


I've been trying to think of a single model range available in Europe which has, as its Halo model (the range-topping one they take all the photos of and which everyone who drives one thinks they're driving), a diesel. I came up with just one - the Skoda Fabia.

Similarly, I can think of any commercial vehicle - the ultimate in automotive tools - available as a non-diesel...

Did you say the same thing about cars when they used turbos to achieve similar performance on smaller engines, but with less fuel?

How old do you think I am!?

Mind you, that's exactly what diesels do...

 

[ExigeEvan]

But the only reason for choosing a diesel engine over a petrol one is fuel economy (or, occasionally, towing. Diesel have lots of torque because almost all diesel engines are turbocharged. Non-turbo diesels are too horrific to contemplate). The decision is financial - and at that point you're just buying a tool for a job. Nobody ever bought a diesel because it was more fun than a petrol equivalent, but because they could get a roughly-as-fast car for nearly-the-same money that looks exactly the same and do 15mpg better.

So if you buy a TT because you can't afford to buy a Boxster, then the TT is a tool? Why is meeting short term financial constraints better than meeting long term ones?

 

[FoolKiller]

It's a compromise - and it's not the same car. Oh, sure, the power figures might be about the same, the acceleration figures might be about the same (probably the diesel will be quicker, as a function of torque), the top speeds might be about the same (probably the petrol will be faster, as a function of gearing and a 5krpm limit) and it'll look the same from the outside, but it won't drive quite the same.

If fun is your main concern, you'd get the petrol. If fun isn't your main concern, you'd get the diesel. It's head (diesel) ruling heart (petrol) - just like our heads tell us to get automatics but we end up with manuals... There's nothing wrong with that - just that I would never get a diesel or an auto unless there was no other choice or if I needed a tool for a job.

In all honesty, when I was buying a car there were almost no diesel available as we were in the limbo period for switching over to the new clean diesel standard. So, I do not have a 1:1 comparison to go by on any car from personal experience. Thus, I can't give my opinion on this point. The next time my car is in at the dealer I'll see if they will let me test drive the Jetta 2.5L vs the Jetta TDI.

How old do you think I am!?

You'll have to pardon my Americaness. See, standard turbos seem to have only really caught on in the last ten years or so here. Before then it was just mainly thought of as a ricer thing. Oddly, the timing seems to coincide with Gran Turismo coming out and the American car buyers becoming aware of things like the WRX and Lancer Evo.

I still know guys with an undying love for classic muscle cars that won't accept any car using a turbo as being any good.

So if you buy a TT because you can't afford to buy a Boxster, then the TT is a tool? Why is meeting short term financial constraints better than meeting long term ones?

Good point.

I have a Rabbit, not a GTI, because of cost. Sure I could have got the GTI, not gotten a Wii or PS3, and lived on Ramen noodles, but that brain over heart decision did not suddenly make my Rabbit a tool. It is still fun, and I drive it as such. My fuel economy will attest to this.

 

[Adamgp]

I still know guys with an undying love for classic muscle cars that won't accept any car using a turbo as being any good.

Not entirely true, there are alot of turbocharged v8's out there.

 

[Famine]

So if you buy a TT because you can't afford to buy a Boxster, then the TT is a tool? Why is meeting short term financial constraints better than meeting long term ones?

TT drivers are tools. Does that count?

Nevertheless, you're talking about the difference between buying a car you can/can't afford to buy. I'm talking about the difference between buying a car you can afford because it has a better fuel economy than another car you can afford.


For instance, when Foolkiller gets his test drive, he'll find one of two things. The diesel will be better to drive* than the equivalent petrol, or it'll be worse to drive. If it's worse to drive and he still would buy it over the equivalent petrol, he'd be doing so only because it has a better fuel economy. The fact he'd even consider test-driving the two comparatively in the first place would tell me he wouldn't do that... I can't think of a reason someone would go test drive cars then disregard it all for paper-racing they could have done in the first place...


* I'm not talking about faster, or quicker, or smoother riding. There's no reason I can think of which would mean a diesel cannot be any of these things. I'm talking about being better to drive. D-R-I-V-E. It's subjective, I agree, and I'd rather not get into that whole, tedious "Spirited driving" debate again.

 

[Danoff]

In Re to M5 - My RSX-S has a wonderful interior, just stick a $300 navigation system on the dash and I think it meets the criteria. (Might want to buy some super quiet tires though)

Acura RSX-S
- Fun? Check!
- Agile? Check!
- Laterally supporting leather seats? Check!
- Leather steering wheel? Yup.
- 6-speed manual? Yup.
- Quality surfaces and materials? Looks like it to me.
- Overpriced Nav system? No. Gotta get one for a reasonable price and put it in the car.
- Sunroof? Absolutely.
- 6-disc changer? Yes but why do you care? Replace it with mp3.
- Looks good? Totally.
- 34 mpg highway? Check.
- Under $30k? Double-check.
- Back seat? It works in a pinch.
- Trunk space? Toooootally
- Serviceable? It's a Honda. You don't need to, but you could if you wanted to.
- VTEC just kicked in yo!

 

[FoolKiller]

TFor instance, when Foolkiller gets his test drive, he'll find one of two things. The diesel will be better to drive* than the equivalent petrol, or it'll be worse to drive. If it's worse to drive and he still would buy it over the equivalent petrol, he'd be doing so only because it has a better fuel economy. The fact he'd even consider test-driving the two comparatively in the first place would tell me he wouldn't do that... I can't think of a reason someone would go test drive cars then disregard it all for paper-racing they could have done in the first place...


* I'm not talking about faster, or quicker, or smoother riding. There's no reason I can think of which would mean a diesel cannot be any of these things. I'm talking about being better to drive. D-R-I-V-E. It's subjective, I agree, and I'd rather not get into that whole, tedious "Spirited driving" debate again.

See, this is all why I often suggest a TDI from VW or Audi when people talk about needing to have a certain fuel efficiency due to budgets. The stated goal of Audi/VW in the TDI program is to make the diesel model equally nice for the driver. The goal of their racing programs are to show that you can have performance and efficiency, so that the kinds of people who would want a fun car to drive (note: they are supporting sports car racing, not any stock car leagues) will see that and then check them out and see if they are equal when it comes to driving.

Perhaps it is the American thought that diesels are clunky, dirty machines that has me seeing these newer systems as such a huge leap in contrast. When compared to diesels in the US from not too long ago these new ones are already so close to being equivelant to the petrol gasoline version that short of driving it I could probably never tell the difference. Well, I can tell the differences in engine sound, but the difference is not a negative on either version..

 

[1X83Z]

But the only reason for choosing a diesel engine over a petrol one is fuel economy (or, occasionally, towing. Diesel have lots of torque because almost all diesel engines are turbocharged. Non-turbo diesels are too horrific to contemplate). The decision is financial - and at that point you're just buying a tool for a job.

Laughable. By this "logic" then someone's decision to buy a CLK Black Series over a 599 GTB because they can't afford a 599 is "financial" and thus the CLK Black Series is just a 'tool for a job.' On this site you will win no points with this argument, Famine. This ain't Top Gear.

In Re to M5 - My RSX-S has a wonderful interior, just stick a $300 navigation system on the dash and I think it meets the criteria. (Might want to buy some super quiet tires though)

Point well taken but I hate to say that I think the RSX interior leaves a lot to be desired, even in comparison to other near-luxury cars:

 

[Famine]

Laughable. By this "logic" then someone's decision to buy a CLK Black Series over a 599 GTB because they can't afford a 599 is "financial" and thus the CLK Black Series is just a 'tool for a job.'

Read on, McDuff:

Nevertheless, you're talking about the difference between buying a car you can/can't afford to buy. I'm talking about the difference between buying a car you can afford because it has a better fuel economy than another car you can afford.

 

[Pupik]

Why is there no ES350 hybrid??? They could use the 4cyl from the Camry...

If you drive like many ES 330-350 drivers did, you might get 30 mpg in the city, but you'd also have to age about 40-60 years in the process in the trade-off. I'm not sure if the car causes liver spots, though.

How about a "CDM" Acura CSX? You can't have the Type-S variant, if you want 30 mpg in the city.

I suppose when it's all said and done, the mark of a luxury car is that fuel mileage ranks quite low on the gotta-have list.

 

[ExigeEvan]

TT drivers are tools. Does that count?

First gen, agreed. But I like the 2nd gen too much!

Nevertheless, you're talking about the difference between buying a car you can/can't afford to buy. I'm talking about the difference between buying a car you can afford because it has a better fuel economy than another car you can afford.

Good thing you've put a for instance in on that one...

For instance, when Foolkiller gets his test drive, he'll find one of two things. The diesel will be better to drive* than the equivalent petrol, or it'll be worse to drive. If it's worse to drive and he still would buy it over the equivalent petrol, he'd be doing so only because it has a better fuel economy. The fact he'd even consider test-driving the two comparatively in the first place would tell me he wouldn't do that... I can't think of a reason someone would go test drive cars then disregard it all for paper-racing they could have done in the first place...

First, where does "the same" come into it. Or perhaps, "equaly good". Like say he likes the top end of the petrol but the bottom end on the diesel?

Now the paper racing. It may be that he's willing to go petrol if it's worth the obvious long term cost. But why go petrol and spend £500 more a year on fuel if the only difference is the NA petrol engine doesn't have any turbo lag? Is that brief moment between putting his foot down and feeling the push in his back work say £1500 over 3 years (this guy gets the shakes the second his car runs out of warranty and sells it, losing loads in depreciation, but by goin diesel doesn't get hit quite so bad).

 

[Famine]

First, where does "the same" come into it. Or perhaps, "equaly good".

It won't. I've driven two identical cars which didn't drive the same, let alone two that look alike but with different engines, gearboxes, clutches and likely other components.

Mind you, 90s Fords were a bit like that...

Like say he likes the top end of the petrol but the bottom end on the diesel?

I refer you to the size=1 note.

It may be that he's willing to go petrol if it's worth the obvious long term cost. But why go petrol and spend £500 more a year on fuel if the only difference is the NA petrol engine doesn't have any turbo lag? Is that brief moment between putting his foot down and feeling the push in his back work say £1500 over 3 years (this guy gets the shakes the second his car runs out of warranty and sells it, losing loads in depreciation, but by goin diesel doesn't get hit quite so bad).

Again, I refer you to the size=1 note. Power and torque have almost no bearing on how a car drives. Take the Mk1 MX-5 1.6. No power of which to speak, fabulous to drive.

If all you're concerned about is fuel economy, why not save a boatload of money and get a 1 litre Lupo? Think of the savings! Or scratch cars altogether and go by bus* (they're diesel too)? Buses work out cheaper per mile and you don't have to pay for parking, insurance or servicing...

We don't all get 1 litre Lupos because we're not logical when it comes to buying cars. We pick what we like the look and feel of. In my case, this doesn't extend to compression engined vehicles.


*Not always viable in the rural wilds of nowhere, and I'm not sure how the US public transport system stacks up

 

[Omnis]

Famine, would you not take an E320 Bluetec over an E350?

 

[Famine]

No. Even putting aside any distaste I might have for owning an E-Class Mercedes, no.

 

[1X83Z]

Read on, McDuff:

Ugh. You're completely missing the point of diesel. Why do you think people buy them? Because they're MORE affordable than the gas variants. Same deal on my CLK63 and 599 comparison. I shouldn't even have to explain this. I swear this forum gets more stupid weekly.

 

[Casio]

Just jump the fence. The Canadian B-Class is $29,990CAD (25,322USD) and gets 25MPG City and 35MPG Highway.

 

[1X83Z]

Just jump the fence. The Canadian B-Class is $29,990CAD (25,322USD) and gets 25MPG City and 35MPG Highway.

I'm pretty sure I can't register that or the CSX in the USA. sadly

 

[Keef]

I agree with Danoff, Doug. The RSX is pretty baller. The interior actually is very nice, also. It's got a minimalistic, sport-oriented design, sure, but like the S2000, the materials are great. Quality similar to the last-gen Accord, which I feel had better material quality than the new Accord.

 

[Quattro20v]

This. Is. Not. Luxury.

 

[niky]

Ugh. You're completely missing the point of diesel. Why do you think people buy them? Because they're MORE affordable than the gas variants. Same deal on my CLK63 and 599 comparison. I shouldn't even have to explain this. I swear this forum gets more stupid weekly.

Nuh uh. Euro IV diesels command a price premium over comparable gasoline variants in the same model range.

----

While I'll completely disagree with Famine's point that diesels aren't fun... that's a subjective point. I'd say diesels can be fun... but the problem is... many comparable gasoline models will be fun-ner... even if they may be slower. And it's not just the extra nose-heaviness that makes diesels feel number through a turn (Ford finally cured that with the Mark 2.5 Focus... the new suspension design removes the extra understeer from the iron-block diesel... and BMW is circumventing the problem entirely with their alloy-blocks)... a gasoline engine just pulls better when you're in the stratospheric ranges of the rev-counter.

Same goes with your typical gasoline turbos versus non-turbo engines. There's something inherently involving and engaging about thrashing a naturally aspirated mill to within an inch of its life... banging it off of an 8000 to 9000 rpm limiter... as compared to riding a wave of torque that expires at just 5000-6000 rpms. In fact, I'm not particularly fond of gasoline engines that can't hit 7000 rpms, at least... even if an engine limited to 6000 rpms has the same amount of urge as an engine limited to 8000 rpms, it isn't going to feel anywhere near as good.

That huff-puff-surge-*wheeze*-shiftplease! is great on the road... but when you're driving at 10/10ths, it's just not as conducive to building a good rhythm. That's the one reason I'd take a V8 M3 over a Nissan GT-R, even if it's slower. More revs. Oh, and it sounds better.

Realistically, I would love to own a modern diesel. Awesome overtaking torque. Good power. Easy to modify (chip-tuning and turbo-chargers are a particularly cheap but potent combination). But here's the thing... I would not give up my current gasoline car to get one.

Instead, I'm waiting for my Dad to get sick of his and sell it to me at a good price... ...one of each (gas/diesel) will suit me just fine.

 

[Famine]

Ugh. You're completely missing the point of diesel. Why do you think people buy them? Because they're MORE affordable than the gas variants.

Because per mile driven they save 0.05p by driving a tractor-engined version of a car they like the look of. They'd save even more if they bought a really cheap, tiny-engined petrol car - but no, they like the look of that one. They'd save even more if they bought a bus pass. But no, they had to buy a car.

Diesel is a "logical" choice bought by people who've made a whole raft of illogical decisions.

I shouldn't even have to explain this. I swear this forum gets more stupid weekly.

Perhaps - radical thought, I know - you've missed a point somewhere. You know, like when you said exactly the same thing as ExigeEvan only three-and-a-half hours later (and with more M5Power-like examples) and after I'd explained the apparent hole.

Or when I suggested a £10k used car as a solution and you discounted it as the new replacement model which is completey different is £22k...

6000 rpms.

In a diesel? That's some fabled promised land.


Given that I suggested a diesel as a solution for the stated criteria, I'm a little mystified that the concept that I'd not own a diesel if you paid me to has attracted such "discussion".

 

[zed300]

Some friends of mine owned a 2003-04 Peugeot 406 wagon I.9 litre Diesel, (not top of the range but still luxurious)it reved to 5000 R.P.M ,although 4400 was all that was really necessary, and got 900km per 72litre tank.(Not totally sure of tank size so I went for the larger, if it's smaller then the numbers only get better.) 12.5 km/litre-4.5litres/gallon-56.25km/gallon-35.16/gallon.Not completely sure of my conversions but it falls at better than 30 M.P.G.

 

[niky]

In a diesel? That's some fabled promised land.

I meant turbocharged engines in general. While there are some that rev quite nicely to 7k rpms (mostly Nissan), many production diesels run out of huff at 6k.

And turbodiesels? Once you're past 3.5k rpms, forget it. Though some are now pushing 5k rpm limiters... though absolutely nothing interesting happens at that point aside from the engine banging off the limiter and some colored lights coming on the dash...

 

[1X83Z]

Because per mile driven they save 0.05p by driving a tractor-engined version of a car they like the look of.

$1200 annually!!!! Do you know how much money that is?!?! It's an ASTRONOMICAL savings for some people and that doesn't even take into account savings in maintenance, increased resale value, and savings on insurance.

Your basic point is wrong for this very reason: people buy diesels to save money. And thus they save money. And in so doing they save money. Where does this not get through to you?!

I don't even know why we're discussing this - the unbelievable popularity of diesels in Europe in the last few years and the resurgence in the number of diesel models sold in the States in the same timeframe shows that the market STRONGLY agrees with me (and every other poster in this thread) and very strongly disagrees with you. Someone earlier said you're showing your age - I totally agree! Adapt, Famine!!

 

[ExigeEvan]

$1200 annually!!!! Do you know how much money that is?!?! It's an ASTRONOMICAL savings for some people and that doesn't even take into account savings in maintenance, increased resale value, and savings on insurance.

That's 0.05 pence, not £0.05.

 

[Famine]

Your basic point is wrong for this very reason: people buy diesels to save money. And thus they save money. And in so doing they save money. Where does this not get through to you?!

If they were saving money, they'd buy the most fuel-efficient, cheapest car they could. Or not buy a car at all.

People do not buy cars to save money. It is not the act of a rational person to suddenly come over all frugal after deciding to buy a car and then subjectively picking one car for arbitrary reasons.


Once more - if you're looking to save money, you do not buy a car.

I don't even know why we're discussing this - the unbelievable popularity of diesels in Europe in the last few years and the resurgence in the number of diesel models sold in the States in the same timeframe shows that the market STRONGLY agrees with me (and every other poster in this thread) and very strongly disagrees with you.

Yeah, because the majority is always right.

Someone earlier said you're showing your age - I totally agree! Adapt, Famine!!

I recommended a diesel. I just wouldn't buy one.

 

[FoolKiller]

If they were saving money, they'd buy the most fuel-efficient, cheapest car they could. Or not buy a car at all.

People do not buy cars to save money. It is not the act of a rational person to suddenly come over all frugal after deciding to buy a car and then subjectively picking one car for arbitrary reasons.


Once more - if you're looking to save money, you do not buy a car.

I must add something that I think you are missing from your first statement, which I think hurts what you are trying to say a bit.

If they were saving money, they'd buy the most fuel-efficient, cheapest car they could. - that fits their needs.

Need room for more than two toddlers, and want to enjoy driving? But you have a specific budget to work with in both car cost and fuel efficiency?
If car decisions were purely about saving money, then yeah, we would all still be driving around in Chevettes. But even for those who are looking at it as just a tool, then it does require more thought than that. How many people will need to fit in the car? How safe should it be for you to feel comfortable? How reliable is it? A cheap car is pointless if it gets repairs every other week.

You made some kind of leap, or at least appear to, that buying a diesel due to fuel efficiency would mean that is priority 1. But if they settled on a car design and are choosing between a gasoline or diesely version then obviously they had a list of criteria first and now the efficiency question is coming up.

I knwo when I looked for a car I knew my affordable budget, and what features I wanted it to have. Then after I found cars that fit those criteria I then looked at efficiency and said, "Can I afford it?" Efficiency is secondary for many people. The people who use efficiency as a primary criteria immediately go look at hybrids. Then very few of them get beyond that point.

No, if someone is looking at a mid-size or larger car and trying to decide on the specific model based on efficiency then they had other things in mind first, and likely tiny cars or buses will not meet their needs/desires.


In this very specific case efficiency is one of a list of things that must be met. He has the ability to afford something around $30k. He would like it to have all kinds of specs, efficiency being one of them. If efficiency were his primary goal then he would have eliminated half his other criteria because a Yaris would fit the efficiency needs. So, diesels were suggested in order to help him find a car that will fit his criteria. I have no doubt that the final decision will still come down to a test drive, as it does with most people.

 

[Famine]

You made some kind of leap, or at least appear to, that buying a diesel due to fuel efficiency would mean that is priority 1. But if they settled on a car design and are choosing between a gasoline or diesely version then obviously they had a list of criteria first and now the efficiency question is coming up.

That was kind of the point though. In an identical model, petrol vs. diesel cook-off, the only reason to buy the diesel is fuel economy.

In this very specific case efficiency is one of a list of things that must be met. He has the ability to afford something around $30k. He would like it to have all kinds of specs, efficiency being one of them. If efficiency were his primary goal then he would have eliminated half his other criteria because a Yaris would fit the efficiency needs. So, diesels were suggested in order to help him find a car that will fit his criteria. I have no doubt that the final decision will still come down to a test drive, as it does with most people.

And I suggested a diesel for this very specific case. Nevertheless, I also find the concept of getting a "luxury" car then caring about fuel economy - when the very concept of luxury adds weight and weight is the enemy of fuel economy - quite bizarre. Why the luxury? 'Cos you want it - and if you didn't you'd get a better fuel economy...

Which is more important to you? The luxury interior you can enjoy being in or the fuel economy so you can save money? If it's the latter, you're just buying white goods.

 

[FoolKiller]

That was kind of the point though. In an identical model, petrol vs. diesel cook-off, the only reason to buy the diesel is fuel economy.

That doesn't make the necessity vs desire debate any easier though. Keeping in mind that necessity is almost always desire in disguise, someone who needs a Jetta, and needs the efficiency of a diesel, did not just turn their car into a tool. It could just as easily be a less enjoyable toy, that also has tool-like capabilities.

Trust me, I believe that if any guy that loves driving cars coudl afford it they would likely own both a tool car and a fun car. As it is, most peopel can only afford one, so compromise must be made. If driving were purely fun I would aspire to a one-seater job, like an Atom (based on not having driven one).

Nevertheless, I also find the concept of getting a "luxury" car then caring about fuel economy - when the very concept of luxury adds weight and weight is the enemy of fuel economy

I said something very similar about the wight of luxury causing fuel economy to come at an added cost up front. I agree that this is a hard find

And I think the main thought has always been, if you can afford luxury you don't likely need economy.