Diesel F10 coming to US...in 2013!

Originally Posted by miamiboyca

You are jumping to conclusions saying that "Nationwide". Here in TX, it's a $.20 difference, And that is only when you compare it to regular. Fair comparison is to do it against Premium, After all you are not putting 87 into your $60,000 sports sedan. Premium is right in line with diesel plus or minus a few cents.

When I left California diesel was always less than premium. Take into account that I'm speaking about two of the most populous state in the country and I think your nationwide statement is completely erroneous. Maybe it doesn't make sense in Michigan, maybe.

No, I'm using published average fuel prices from the AAA:

http://fuelgaugereport.opisnet.com/index.asp

Today, yesterday, last year - it's all the same. Diesel is $0.60 more per gallon than 87 octane gasoline, and almost $0.30 more than premium. The reason I was comparing to 87 octane is that the above discussion wandered over to the 2.5L Jetta, and the majority of diesel options should be compared against non-performance gasoline powertrains.

If you're lucky and live somewhere where diesel is cheap, then good for you. But if everyone here is reporting that diesel is only $0.20 more per gallon than 87 gas, somewhere else in the country it's $1.00 more. Data is data, the gasoline/diesel price gap is very real.

I'm not some anti-diesel troll, I have a 1.5yr old diesel SUV in my garage...! But the fanaticism around diesel, mostly based on the "it worked in Europe" argument, is a red herring because EU diesel usage was driven by policy. Policies are different over here, and much less favorable to diesel.

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

I'm not some anti-diesel troll, I have a 1.5yr old diesel SUV in my garage...! But the fanaticism around diesel, mostly based on the "it worked in Europe" argument, is a red herring because EU diesel usage was driven by policy. Policies are different over here, and much less favorable to diesel.

Only diesel SUV on the market are Q7, X5, Touareg, ML, GL, and Cayenne. All of these require 91+ octane. If you are comparing 87 prices to diesel and saying how the diesel makes no sense for these SUVs, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Even at the required 91 octane, the price of diesel is less or about the same. These SUVs are much more fuel efficient with their diesel powertrains over the comparative petrol engine, therefore your argument makes no sense, yet again... By spending the same, you go much longer on a gallon of diesel versus 91.

And that's why policies should change. Diesels are far better than gas engines for economy with minimal or no loss of power. By me diesel is 10-20 cents less than premium...

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

Today, yesterday, last year - it's all the same. Diesel is $0.60 more per gallon than 87 octane gasoline, and almost $0.30 more than premium. The reason I was comparing to 87 octane is that the above discussion wandered over to the 2.5L Jetta, and the majority of diesel options should be compared against non-performance gasoline powertrains.

Even if you take into account the price difference between 87 and diesel, you still spend less on fuel on the diesel variant. Let's not forget, with the 2.5 I5, it is pretty hard to maintain that combined expected 26 MPG rating, whereas the 34 combined for the diesel can be done by beating on the engine constantly. It is closer to higher 30s, whereas average values for the 2.5I5 are low 20s combined.

Originally Posted by AutoUnion

Even if you take into account the price difference between 87 and diesel, you still spend less on fuel on the diesel variant. Let's not forget, with the 2.5 I5, it is pretty hard to maintain that combined expected 26 MPG rating, whereas the 34 combined for the diesel can be done by beating on the engine constantly. It is closer to higher 30s, whereas average values for the 2.5I5 are low 20s combined.

Show me who can get EPA estimates on gassier during normal driving.

From other hand if you read TDI forums there are complains that far amount of drivers cannot beat EPA estimates by more than 20% margin. (though some with magic break-in sequence are getting 45+ on highway@65mps or 47+mpg on country-roads @55mph)

Though I personally was getting during roundtrips to LA stable 38-39mpg (e.g. exact EPA estimates) while driving 80mph average and easy 42mpg if I keep myself at 65mph.

It's about time BMW put a diesel in the F10. They purposefully made the F10 more attractive to Merc E Class buyers and then promptly shut out a not insignificant segment of that market by not making a diesel available. This decision was made even more ludicrous by the fact they had a marvelous diesel available at that exact time that they had just introduced into the 3er. Truly mind boggling.

Not diesel related, but equally as mind boggling is that they also handed their 5er wagon market to Merc on a silver platter with even a bow on top. I love the 5 GT, but here we are more than three years down the road and while BMW has publicly acknowledged that the 5 GT has not been successful at replacing the 5er wagon they have not taken the hour that would be necessary to add the F11 to the U.S. lineup.

I love BMW, but their decisions are incomprehensible sometimes.

Originally Posted by AutoUnion

Only diesel SUV on the market are Q7, X5, Touareg, ML, GL, and Cayenne. All of these require 91+ octane. If you are comparing 87 prices to diesel and saying how the diesel makes no sense for these SUVs, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

Even at the required 91 octane, the price of diesel is less or about the same. These SUVs are much more fuel efficient with their diesel powertrains over the comparative petrol engine, therefore your argument makes no sense, yet again... By spending the same, you go much longer on a gallon of diesel versus 91.

Originally Posted by AutoUnion

Even if you take into account the price difference between 87 and diesel, you still spend less on fuel on the diesel variant. Let's not forget, with the 2.5 I5, it is pretty hard to maintain that combined expected 26 MPG rating, whereas the 34 combined for the diesel can be done by beating on the engine constantly. It is closer to higher 30s, whereas average values for the 2.5I5 are low 20s combined.

I don't think you listened, or want to hear, my argument. You're drawing the circle around operating costs. If you draw the circle around total cost of ownership, which is the point I'm making, diesel does not payoff for ~3-4yrs. We see the same failed logic here in lease threads when people brag about low monthly payments while choosing to ignore the chunk of cash they had to pay up front.

Even in the fantasy land where diesel is the same price as mid-grade 91 gasoline the argument holds because you paid $2.5k to $3k more for the car. It takes a lot of gallons of fuel to recover that money.

The reason I like our TDI Touareg is simple, I can drive 700 miles on a tank. But I've accepted the fact that I'm not saving much (or any) money doing it.

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

I don't think you listened, or want to hear, my argument. You're drawing the circle around operating costs. If you draw the circle around total cost of ownership, which is the point I'm making, diesel does not payoff for ~3-4yrs. We see the same failed logic here in lease threads when people brag about low monthly payments while choosing to ignore the chunk of cash they had to pay up front.

Even in the fantasy land where diesel is the same price as mid-grade 91 gasoline the argument holds because you paid $2.5k to $3k more for the car. It takes a lot of gallons of fuel to recover that money.

The reason I like our TDI Touareg is simple, I can drive 700 miles on a tank. But I've accepted the fact that I'm not saving much (or any) money doing it.

I now know those cheezypoofs have gone to your head.

the chunk of cash they had to pay up front.…. Don't make me laugh. That big chunk of change is the title, the registration, and any fees associated with any purchase or lease of the vehicle.

The rest is your first payment. Where is the big chunk of change that unfairly portrays leases?

Back to Diesel... with ECO credits diesels are not that much more expensive than their gas powered cousins. Sometimes or even less expensive.

Originally Posted by miamiboyca

I now know those cheezypoofs have gone to your head.

the chunk of cash they had to pay up front.…. Don't make me laugh. That big chunk of change is the title, the registration, and any fees associated with any purchase or lease of the vehicle.

The rest is your first payment. Where is the big chunk of change that unfairly portrays leases?

Back to Diesel... with ECO credits diesels are not that much more expensive than their gas powered cousins. Sometimes or even less expensive.

Really, you've never heard of capital cost reduction (aka, "putting money down") for leases? All you're doing in these situations is paying more up front to pay less per month.

If you can get someone else to subsidize your diesel vehicle then by all means go for it, and in that case the point I'm making about total cost of ownership does not apply. You're not going to find me arguing against free money...!

Originally Posted by wildvlad

(though some with magic break-in sequence are getting 45+ on highway@65mps or 47+mpg on country-roads @55mph)

I'm a fan of magic break-in procedures. What do they do?

Originally Posted by dunderhi

I'm a fan of magic break-in procedures. What do they do?

Pound it to hell after getting 1K on odo and big NO to cruise control Diesel loves variable RPMs and needs to periodically get into full throttle alternating with breaking by engine. http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread...9+engine+break

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

Even in the fantasy land where diesel is the same price as mid-grade 91 gasoline the argument holds because you paid $2.5k to $3k more for the car. It takes a lot of gallons of fuel to recover that money.

Woohoo! I must live somewhere even better than fantasy land. Especially since my 335d cost less out the door than the equivalent 335i and that was before the Government tax credits.

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

Really, you've never heard of capital cost reduction (aka, "putting money down") for leases? All you're doing in these situations is paying more up front to pay less per month.

You do not understand leases. My total out of pocket was around $1100. That included 1st payment (around $700) Registration, (around $250) and a couple other junk stuff that I forget.

My payment is right at $700 per month, for a car whose CAP Cost (sales price) was around $58,000. Only inexperienced people put lots of money down on leases. And even when they do, they get EVEN LOWER payments than the already low payments of a BMW lease.

We may disagree about diesels, and I get that's an opinion, but you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to leases. No clue whatsoever. You just don't understand them.

The only time a lease looks bad financially is if you keep a car 7 years plus.

Originally Posted by wildvlad

Pound it to hell after getting 1K on odo and big NO to cruise control Diesel loves variable RPMs and needs to periodically get into full throttle alternating with breaking by engine. http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread...9+engine+break

Ah, a conservative break-in method. I believe in hitting it hard very early. With my 335d I hit 150mph twice before I had 28 miles on the odometer.

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

I don't think you listened, or want to hear, my argument. You're drawing the circle around operating costs. If you draw the circle around total cost of ownership, which is the point I'm making, diesel does not payoff for ~3-4yrs. We see the same failed logic here in lease threads when people brag about low monthly payments while choosing to ignore the chunk of cash they had to pay up front.

Even in the fantasy land where diesel is the same price as mid-grade 91 gasoline the argument holds because you paid $2.5k to $3k more for the car. It takes a lot of gallons of fuel to recover that money.

The reason I like our TDI Touareg is simple, I can drive 700 miles on a tank. But I've accepted the fact that I'm not saving much (or any) money doing it.

The argument was already made that diesels cost a little more to buy, but they command an higher premium on resale. So yes, you are paying more upfront but you are getting more when you sell. And I don't know how much or little you know about leases but most people do not put huge sums out of pocket. And the comparisons were made with 2 leases. Which means if you lease a diesel X5 vs a non diesel similarly optioned the payments will be very close if not cheaper on the diesel because of higher residual/ Eco credits. And that has nothing to do with out of pocket, the comparison is equal terms.

Oh, and yes, you can get ridiculous terms on a lease without putting a big down payment. I just picked up a 2012 750 for when the weather is crappy. $101.xxx sticker, 12k miles 36 months $1500 total out of pocket for $680 a month and that includes the tire insurance, window tinting and all weather mats

And your comment about pricing fantasy land is funny. Just because people in your area get gouged at the diesel pump doesn't mean other areas aren't more normal. Diesel is usually +/- 10 cents over premium here....

Originally Posted by miamiboyca

You do not understand leases. My total out of pocket was around $1100.

That included 1st payment (around $700) Registration, (around $250) and a couple other junk stuff that I forget.

My payment is right at $700 per month, for a car whose CAP Cost (sales price) was around $58,000.

Only inexperienced people put lots of money down on leases. And even when they do, they get EVEN LOWER payments than the already low payments of a BMW lease.

We may disagree about diesels, and I get that's an opinion, but you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to leases. No clue whatsoever. You just don't understand them.

The only time a lease looks bad financially is if you keep a car 7 years plus.

I understand leases just fine. I proposed an analogy that putting more down upfront for a lease (which we both know if a fool's game), in exchange for lower monthly payments is similar to paying more for a diesel engine in exchange for lower operating (fuel) costs. The psychology of lower lease monthly payments traps a lot of people and I think the same can be said for those that buy diesel without considering the total picture.

Now, if you can buy a diesel powertrain with equivalent performance, features, etc. for the same price as gasoline, then I have no argument. That is a sweet deal. Personally I didn't know it was possible because I'm mostly familiar with the VW Group lineup of diesels, which all cost $2,500 to $3,000 more than their gasoline equivalent. Completely ignoring the fuel costs, it still take a lot of driving to recover the additional cost of to own.

I'm not familiar with diesel resale/residuals vs. gasoline - I'd be interested to know what a 3yr lease residual % looks like on a Jetta TDI vs. gasoline.

Originally Posted by miamiboyca

The only time a lease looks bad financially is if you keep a car 7 years plus.

I do a lease vs buy analysis before every purchase. Even over a three year time-frame leases are not always cheaper. Residuals & money factors vs interest rates & resell values ebb & flow month to month and from manufacturer to manufacturer. For instance BMW offers a lot of cash and low interest rates during their Winter sales events, but they very quietly lower their residuals such that their lease offers little to no advantage over the prior or following months, so the Winter event tends to favor purchasers. Mercedes standard lease rates tend to be quite high compared to market finance rates, so they tend to be close. A nice high resudual can have the same effect as an extra 5-10k off a purchase, but one really needs to understand the leasing costs and not blindly lease cars because because they are "always cheaper."

Originally Posted by dunderhi

Ah, a conservative break-in method. I believe in hitting it hard very early. With my 335d I hit 150mph twice before I had 28 miles on the odometer.

Yeah, looking at your MPG you definitely went extra step on pounding it.

Originally Posted by Emilner

...And your comment about pricing fantasy land is funny. Just because people in your area get gouged at the diesel pump doesn't mean other areas aren't more normal. Diesel is usually +/- 10 cents over premium here....

Well I have to comment on this, because it's data vs. bimmerfest anectodes. The data clearly shows diesel is $.30 more than premium. State by state varies, but just looking at big ones it's still a significant gap. CA is $0.25; NY is $0.15; TX is $0.35... NY looks pretty good actually. The $0.30 we pay more here in michigan is, according to the data, exactly average.

Diesel engines cost more to build, and diesel fuel costs more than gasoline (for various bad reasons). These are facts that can't (lol, I know better) be argued. Subsidies can help the first one, the 2nd is bigger and unlikely to change.

Originally Posted by dunderhi

Ah, a conservative break-in method. I believe in hitting it hard very early. With my 335d I hit 150mph twice before I had 28 miles on the odometer.

And BTW, that's why radar detectors on at least diesel BMW should fall under "safety category" and be non-optional factory-installed equipment IMHO

Originally Posted by wildvlad

Show me who can get EPA estimates on gassier during normal driving....

The EPA testing methods were revised in 2008 and now yield much more conservative numbers. You can easily beat the EPA estimates if you try at all.

Originally Posted by wildvlad

And BTW, that's why radar detectors on at least diesel BMW should fall under "safety category" and be non-optional factory-installed equipment IMHO

European Delivery and the Autobahn; the best way to break-in a BMW.

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

Well I have to comment on this, because it's data vs. bimmerfest anectodes. The data clearly shows diesel is $.30 more than premium. State by state varies, but just looking at big ones it's still a significant gap. CA is $0.25; NY is $0.15; TX is $0.35... NY looks pretty good actually. The $0.30 we pay more here in michigan is, according to the data, exactly average.

Diesel engines cost more to build, and diesel fuel costs more than gasoline (for various bad reasons). These are facts that can't (lol, I know better) be argued. Subsidies can help the first one, the 2nd is bigger and unlikely to change.

Economy:

$0.25 out of ~$4 equates to ~6%. +10MPG on top of 25MPG is 40%.

Big chunk of extra cost of diesel engine can be easy recouped back when time comes to sell it (used TDIs are rare and hard to find). If you lease it - then you need to apply lease math to the extra cost of diesel - e.g. do not forget to subtract residual when you are looking at the price difference.

p.s. 335d has 425lbs-ft of torque, which is almost the same as 550i (people buy horsepowers, but drive torque), so, when compare price of upcoming 535d, compare it with avg of 535i and 550i to have better understanding of value-proposition.

Originally Posted by d geek

The EPA testing methods were revised in 2008 and now yield much more conservative numbers. You can easily beat the EPA estimates if you try at all.

No EPA estimates consider driving at 80-100mph, where you still can match EPA numbers on diesel.

Originally Posted by cheezypoof

Well I have to comment on this, because it's data vs. bimmerfest anectodes. The data clearly shows diesel is $.30 more than premium. State by state varies, but just looking at big ones it's still a significant gap. CA is $0.25; NY is $0.15; TX is $0.35... NY looks pretty good actually. The $0.30 we pay more here in michigan is, according to the data, exactly average.

Diesel engines cost more to build, and diesel fuel costs more than gasoline (for various bad reasons). These are facts that can't (lol, I know better) be argued. Subsidies can help the first one, the 2nd is bigger and unlikely to change.

From what I've read of your arguments they are well reasoned, but this post brings into question the accuracy of this particular data. My comments are in reference to Texas, where I lived most of my life, until my recent move. I can tell you from years of direct observation of fuel prices in Texas that diesel fuel is rarely 35 cents/gal. higher or lower than premium. It is usually quite close to the same price per gallon. Usually within 10 cents higher or lower and RARELY more than 20 cents different, whether up or down. Whoever came up with an average difference of 35 centin Texas was not looking at real world fuel prices.

There is one way I can see that data holding up. That is if you compare to premium unleaded with 91 octane. But, in Texas that represents a minuscule segment of the premium fuel market. In Texas well over 95% of premium fuel available is 93 octane. (Excepting the high plains of Texas where the elevation is over 3,000 feet and virtually all premium fuel is 90 octane.)