Help my mom pick out a new car!

[BrutherSuperior]

Surely the US & Canada are on ultra low sulphur diesel by now, though. According to ever delightful Wikipedia, diesel with no more than 15 parts per million of sulphur has been around for nearly 5 years - that can't be that different from our 10ppm limit, can it? Even if it was (unscientific point coming up), we've had diesels in our family for the last 19 years and we've never had a problem with starting them in the cold as far as I can recall - and that's going back to a time when presumably we had fairly rubbish sulphur levels too.

What's the coldest it gets during a UK winter? My guess you do not reach sub 0F while you occasionally see sub 0C. Big difference...

Canada and the northern parts of the US (especially the midwest and east) get really cold...-30C cold happens pretty much every year.

 

[Joel]

Did the dealer say when she'll be able to order a new Passat? A Passat TDI sounds perfect....

Not until later on this summer was what they said, July I believe. But I think they've decided on a TDI Golf Wagon.

 

[Joey D]

People drive diesels in Michigan and do not have an issue what-so-ever. It's just as cold in Michigan during the winter as it is in many parts of Canada. The only problem I could see with owning a diesel is that not every station carries diesel fuel, but that is becoming less and less of an issue now days.

 

[Joel]

Every station around here I've seen has diesel, they have to because it's a rural farming area and everyone needs it for their tractors.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Per unit of capacity perhaps, but since bigger engines burn more fuel, small ones are inherently more efficient.

Bigger engines do not burn more fuel...they just have the ability to do more work.

Many people confuse thermal efficiency with what their gas gauge/trip computer says. It's two different things.

When it comes down to how much energy an engine can extract from a drop of fuel (thermal efficiency as most power is lost to heat), most engines are within 1% of each other. That's engine efficiency.

Taking into account things like rolling resistance, wind resistance, parasitic power loss from accessories, driveline, etc, etc...then you get the MPG efficiency everyone thinks of.

The big thing with higher MPG is weight. Lower weight requires less energy to accelerate. The big thing with thermal efficiency is compression, which is why direct injection is a significant step forward once the carbon/fuel pump/cam profile teething is done with.

There's plenty of little crappy cars out there with equally small and equally crappy engines in them getting good MPGs. Why? They weigh nothing...yet...their engine's thermal efficiency is less than an American muscle car from the late 60's (really). Back then, with leaded gas, engines were able to run very high compression ratios and less energy was wasted as heat. But factor in things like bias-ply tires, 4000-ish pounds of weight, and a driveline that sapped over 20% of the power...and they didn't get great MPGs.

Whether you like it or not, it still requires the same amount of energy to accelerate a given mass to a certain speed in a specific amount of time. 4cyl or V10; if the vehicle weighs the same they'll burn damn near the same amount of fuel. Only difference? The V10 will absolutely scream when you get on it whereas the puny car with an engine marginally suitable for lawn care will be overtaken by children first learning to ride a bike.

 

[motortrend]

Acura TSX? Its right at the top of the budget, it does get good mileage and is pretty luxurious though.

 

[kiladonut]

Tell her to look into Hyundais. My mother actually just picked up a new fully loaded 2011 v6 auto genesis coupe for $26k USD. When she bought it she was looking between this and a 2011 mustang, and I have to say the hyundai is a nicer car (and much better price). It fits right into the budget too and come with a warranty full of win.

 

[motortrend]

Tell her to look into Hyundais. My mother actually just picked up a new fully loaded 2011 v6 auto genesis coupe for $26k USD. When she bought it she was looking between this and a 2011 mustang, and I have to say the hyundai is a nicer car (and much better price). It fits right into the budget too and come with a warranty full of win.

This too, also the new Sonata has GREAT value plus the great incentive that is that warranty

 

[homeforsummer]

Whether you like it or not, it still requires the same amount of energy to accelerate a given mass to a certain speed in a specific amount of time. 4cyl or V10; if the vehicle weighs the same they'll burn damn near the same amount of fuel. Only difference? The V10 will absolutely scream when you get on it whereas the puny car with an engine marginally suitable for lawn care will be overtaken by children first learning to ride a bike.

You're ignoring, y'know, physics and chemistry.

I've been over this:

Two cars I've owned were available in several engine sizes. All the vehicles weighed pretty much the same. The bigger engined versions in each range use more fuel than the smaller engined ones. Sure, they probably work less hard for equivalent performance, but unless you're trying to extract greater performance from one than you are the other (i.e. the popularly-referred to Top Gear test between a thrashed Prius and a gently-driven BMW M3) then the smaller engine uses less fuel.

If I drove moderately quickly in my current car then a model in the range with a smaller engine would probably use quite a bit of fuel keeping up. However, if I drove normally, as you might around town, or doing a constant 70mph on a motorway, the smaller engine will use less fuel.

You cannot disagree with this, surely?

A big engine ingests more air and more fuel than a smaller engine. It's as simple as that. There are anomalies depending on weight, the type of engine, gearing and the way you drive, but on a very basic level a bigger engine will always use more fuel than a smaller one.

I'm not talking about unitary efficiency because then something like the engine from any number of supercars would technically be more fuel efficient than the smallest of eco cars. I'm talking fuel usage between a big engine and a smaller engine.

 

[Danoff]

'08 tsx

 

[YSSMAN]

To be honest, you have a lot of great options to work with. that being said, it may be almost too much to make the absolute best decision.

the decontented 2012 Passat is a lot better than most seem. The ones I looked at in Chicago were pretty nice, particularly the higher level SES models. if you can wait, it isnt a bad option when it comes to value for money. but, there are other cars to look at...

in my mind, the Ford Fusion is still the best all-around mid-size vehicle on the road today. The prices are reasonable, powertrains sensible, and you get the outstanding build quality that Ford is becoming to be known for. The only problem is that they are due to replace the car in the next year or so.

The next best bet for me would be the Kia Optima, It is probably the best-looking car in the segment, and with the SX options included, they go like stink. They look wonderful in almost any color, and appear downright menacing at night. Give me an SX in blue with the fancy leather interior and I`m a happy camper.

 

[Joel]

Just for some closure, they ordered a 2011 VW Golf TDI Wagon in Black. I put some of your suggestions in for consideration (Kias, Fords, Hyundais, Acura TSX), but they were stuck on VW. They really liked their test drive with the TDI Golf Wagon, and that sold them on the car.