Is It Time To Throw In The Towel On The Diesel?

Diesels are dead. After this generation of engines there is no reason to further develop the tech for passenger vehicles (except large pickups/suvs). Hybrids offer the same mpg benefits at a lower cost at this point.

re "...Hybrids offer the same mpg benefits at a lower cost at this point..."

Nope. I did the comparison. Here are the hard facts I faced during before my purchase:
- Hybrid cost more to buy
- Hybrid required the more expensive premium gasoline to run
- Hybrid provided marginally better (EPA stated) fuel economy in pure city driving
- Hybrid provided worse (EPA stated) fuel economy on highways and combined driving
- Hybrid had slower 0-60 MPH time
- Hybrid had higher fuel cost per mile (more expensive fuel + worse fuel economy)
- As with all gasoline vehicles, Hybrid got worse real-world fuel economy than EPA numbers, while diesel got better.

My comparison was the most equal and fair you can make: *IDENTICAL* vehicle, except for drivetrain difference. It was an easy decision for me to go diesel. I'm glad I did... except for the still-unresolved Dieselgate scandal :-(

Poor Stevie Wevie is trying so hard to justify his Audi wowdi.

MDarringer and jonesharrison: I did my homework, and I made my decision based on my findings. You’re free to believe whatever you want.

If you guys know of a car or SUV that’s available in both a diesel and gasoline/hybrid variant, and you wish to present your case on how the hybrid variant comes out on top, then by all means, please do! I’m interested in seeing your findings.

In the hope that I can circumvent readers from jumping to wrong conclusions, I DO *NOT* assert:
- A diesel is always better that a gasoline/electric hybrid
- You should buy a diesel

I am challenging malba2367’s claim that “…Hybrids offer the same mpg benefits at a lower cost at this point…”.

In my specific case, when I was shopping for an SUV, the Q5 was available in hybrid and diesel variants (as well as several gasoline engines). My post of 11/21/2017 2:27:24 PM speaks to that hybrid vs diesel comparison. The diesel Q5 came out favorably in all respects compared to the Hybrid Q5 (except a slight EPA-stated City MPG advantage for the Hybrid, but *not* a “cost per mile” savings in city driving.)

As always, when considering a new vehicle, do your due diligence. If you’re bent on getting a hybrid anyway, then you already know you’re getting a hybrid.

Jonesharrison re “…You still made that shit up…”

You not knowing the facts does not constitute an alternative reality. If you should care do START doing your due diligence, and if you truly wish to ascertaining the validity of my statements (rather than just denying them), start by finding the specs and pricing for a 2015 Audi Q5 Hybrid (with 2.0L gasoline engine), and compare that data to the 2015 Audi Q5 TDI (with 3.0L diesel engine).

You’ll quickly discover that your allegations of “…You still made that shit up…” is nothing more than you not knowing the facts, while *believing* they can’t possibly be right because… well… Hybrids. (Or troll; I don’t know which.)

In case you’re interested, even after I saw the specs (in which the diesel got better EPA fuel economy), and I saw the lower price tag for the diesel, I did additional research to note fuel price trends in my locale. I noticed that diesel consistently sold for less that premium unleaded gas. I also did research to determine what real-world owners were getting for fuel economy, and again, the diesel Q5 came out ahead.

So yeah, it’s funny to hear you – who is ignorant of all this information – claiming loudly and assertively that it just ain’t so!

Actually - I agree with the Steve. I have driven both a Fusion Hybrid - and now a Malibu as a company car - and I despise them both - although the Malibu is MUCH MUCH better than the Fusion - I really hate the CVT in the Fusion - and these cars are simply impossible to drive in a sporty manner.

A diesel - although not available here - they are in Europe on European models of these level cars -also costs more money than a gas engine - BUT - it provides a far more enjoyable driving experience - combined with fuel efficiency on long distances which a Hybrid cannot match yet.

I would much prefer a Diesel over a Hybrid - although in these cases it was NOT my choice.

While people say it is impossible to meet emissions regulations with a Future Diesel - amazingly they said that 30 years ago as well - and they eventually did. IF there is an economic advantage to make for diesels based on fuel prices - manufacturers will eventually solve the emissions problem. Before the Catalytic Converter was developed - they did not think that they would be able to meet emissions regulations with gas engines. I will side on the idea that they problems COULD BE SOLVED - and likely it is in Large Trucks where it will continue to be needed - so they WILL find a way.

However - it is the huge disparity between Petrol/gas taxes in Europe making Diesel MUCH MUCH less expensive than gas that will keep Diesel cars on the market for far longer THERE than they will be here in the USA - where diesel is priced more similar to Unleaded (Only slightly higher in most cases).

The amount of technological complication necessary to make the diesel a good citizen is simply too much when hybrids and EVs are so obviously the wave to ride.

I predict that hybridization will replace the need for turbo engines. I'd really rather have a hybrid Fusion than the base Ecoboost for example and both can be had for shockingly similar prices.

Most of the dire warnings about diesel engines are in regards to the older engines. The newest generation models (except for the VW software issue) are cleaner than most every gas powered model. And no, hybrids don't offer the same benefits at a lower cost. Hybrids have a cost penalty over a non-hybrid, same as diesel over gas. And most hybrids on the market don't have that low end torque of a diesel. They are using the electric motor for economy, not performance, so they don't have the same push.

I've been shopping for the last month for something to replace my Q5 (gas, not diesel). There's almost no diesel or hybrid models available in this category, and the few hybrids that are there cost more than a diesel equivalent would be. Unfortunately, in the US there are almost no diesel models to compare with. I almost decided on the Equinox diesel, but just have to have something that car doesn't have (adaptive cruise). The Mazda CX-5 diesel hasn't arrived yet, the Jaguar is too expensive, and there just aren't any others.

I would have happily bought a new Tiguan with a diesel or hybrid engine, but I can't get either of them. I'd probably still buy a Tiguan if I could find the color and trim I want in the area. There just aren't any within 150 miles of my home.

Fiftysix wrote “…An MDX Hybrid is far cheaper than a Q5 in any form…”

Yup. And a Prius is cheaper than a BMW.

But if you compare apples to apples, you’ll note:
1. The Acura does not offer a diesel option
2. The Acura MDX gasoline variant starts at $44,200 while the Hybrid starts at $52,935

Yes, I overlooked the Acura. Mainly because the last time I priced an Acura it was overpriced for the content. I didn't expect that to have changed, so I didn't even bother looking at it.

Love my '17 Colorado diesel. Crew cab, long bed and gets 32 mpg on long trips. Not a rocket off the line but peppy enough and can tow 7k+ loads. Perfect engine for a truck.

From a keyboard in the US, diesel has never been A Thing. It never really caught on on these shores, aside from larger trucks and commercial vehicles. That's why Americans can easily embrace the opinion that "Diesel is Dead".

Elsewhere in the world, things are different. In 2016, Western European countries showed that Diesel owned about 40% to 70% of new passenger car market share. The UK had 47.7% while Ireland had 70%!!!

Yeah, the world looks different than the US :-/

By the way, I'm still enjoying my Audi Q5 3.0L diesel. I got over 46 MPG (US) across a 3,100 mile (round trip) road trip. Still waiting for the Dieselgate fix. Love my car! (SERIOUSLY pissed at Volkswagen/Audi Group, though)

Yes

Sidenote that in some cities EVs are already over 10% of all new car sales.

I guess we'll find out soon when all the rebates expire. I think the Model 3 will easily sell at $35k-$60k with no incentives. A $25k-$30k Leaf with 200 miles of range will also probably sell.

I love the interior, it will take time to grown on most people because it is a dramatic shift in what people are use to. Make no mistake, this is the direction all cars will eventually go--Tesla is just getting there first. Eventually cars without a streamlined interior will look very dated (picture a Blackberry phone right now). Even the $200k roadster has a very similar interior to the 3 and I would expect the S/X to move in this direction bigtime when the do an interior update in 2018.

I've the Model 3 interior in person and it looks great. I would take it any day over the clusterf* in the BMW 3-series.

Given 400,000+ people on the reservation list have ALL seen photos of the interior and did not cancel their orders immediately, I think it will sell just fine.

The problem with diesel is that at this point it is very clear that it is not possible to meet the current CARB/US emissions or the future EU standards without urea injection. The cost of that system makes diesel more expensive than hybrids. The cost is absorbed in luxury cars but in mainstream cars it is a large amount. Europe subsidized diesel for very long...they are not waking up to the realization that they were wrong. Large cities such as Paris and London have already discussed banning diesels from the city limits. As soon as a large country such as the UK or France taxes diesel cars heavily Hybrids will take over.

malba2367 wrote “…The cost of [a diesel's urea injection] system makes diesel more expensive than hybrids…”

Nope! Diesel still has a less expensive price tag.

I did that comparison when I was shopping for a new SUV. With my Audi Q5, the diesel variant WITH the urea injection system (DEF = Diesel Exhaust Fluid) and a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) – i.e., the latest and most expensive diesel technology at the time – had a less expensive price tag than the equivalent Q5 Hybrid (only difference being diesel or hybrid). That’s a fact. The diesel also had lower operating costs. Same vehicle, available with either a diesel drivetrain or gasoline/electric Hybrid drivetrain. Otherwise identical. The diesel variant had a much lower purchase price! See my post of 11/21/2017 2:27:24 PM on this page for more advantages my diesel Q5 had over the Hybrid Q5 counterpart. Those facts should not be ignored by the “Hybrid is always better in every way” crowd.

If you have an example of a vehicle that’s available in both diesel and Hybrid variants, and you can demonstrate that the Hybrid is less expensive, then please do share that with us! I’m not saying it can’t possibly exist. I’m just not aware of an example of that being true.

Remember: SAME vehicle, with the only difference being diesel vs Hybrid drivetrain (and related drivetrain gizmos like hybrid batteries or DPF and DEF, obviously). That’s the only reasonable way to make the comparison you allege favors Hybrids. It would be silly to compare a Prius Hybrid to a BMW diesel and proclaim, “See, I told ‘ja the Hybrid is cheaper!” :-)

@fiftysix In TheSteve's magic unicorn land, he is always right. I worry about him. He clearly has retired and has nothing better to do than to write bullying essays where he quotes himself as proof of what he is saying.

A) that was a peak maximum, not continuous

B) only some models emitted that high, most were no more than 10x (again, a peak)

C) the urea models, such as his Q5 and my Passat, were more like 4.5x (again, peak values)

D) the only regulated emission that was exceeded was NOx. All other regulated emissions were at or below not only the standards, but gas powered cars as well. There are quite a number of scientists that question if NOx is really an issue. Studies have actually shown that NOx can reduce more significant types of pollutants under certain conditions. I wish I could quote the study, but I don't have that immediately available.

fiftysix wrote “…Don't forget Steve, your Diesel puts out 40 times more pollution than allowed…”

Your understanding is not correct. You’re referring to Volkswagen’s 2.0L (and smaller) diesels, those being without DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid, or “Urea injection”). They were they the *only* engines that emitted extremely high NOx levels at peak. They were found in a variety of vehicles from VW, Audi, Seat, etc. (from the Volkswagen Audi Group, or VAG)

My Audi Q5 has a 3.0 Liter V6 with the urea injection system. That’s an entirely different beast. Yeah, I’ve been keep up on available details since September 2015, because my vehicle is affected.

VAG’s 3.0L diesel engines were found guilty (by the EPA and CARB) of having undisclosed “exceptions” during the emissions test cycle. By law, the manufacturer must document any and all operations of the emissions system during the emissions certification test cycle, even in those exceptional cases where they do something temporarily (i.e., short duration) to prevent damage to the engine, emissions systems, etc. during cold-weather starts. VW did not disclose all exceptions when testing the 3.0L diesels. Therefore, they broke the law, got caught, and paid the penalty.

In terms of overall emissions, if you measure CO2 emissions per mile (especially considering the real-world fuel economy I get), my 3.0L diesel is LESS polluting than most gasoline engines. Gas engines, in general, emit far more CO2 compared to a diesel equivalent. Mind you, Climate Change Deniers (a) deny CO2 emissions are a problem, and (b) deny this happens in the gas vs diesel comparison. Furthermore, there’s lots of anti-diesel bias (and ignorance) in North America, so most North Americans never do any actual research before they form their opinions about diesel. They simply believe the “dirty diesel” stuff they hear in the news and from other people, without knowing what, which engines, etc.

Also, Diesel’s guilt lies in “old school” diesel engines like VW’s 2.0L and smaller non-DEF diesels, which emit huge amounts of NOx (oxides of nitrogen). While NOx are not greenhouse gasses, they are toxic to humans and animals. That’s REALLY bad! However, modern diesels, such as those with properly functioning DEF systems and catalytic converters, address the NOx issues. They emit minimal (and legal) NOx levels, and a lot less CO2 than an equivalent gasoline engine, but you know... “dirty diesel” because… well… diesels, hybrids, etc.

I’m sure this post won’t inspire anyone to hone up on their facts or change their beliefs. If ya hate diesel, ya hate diesel, and no facts are gonna make ya like it. That’s okay. Meanwhile, I love my car! :-)


fiftysix also wrote “And LOL at Steve "CLAIMING" he averages OVER 46 mpg in his Audi SUV. LOL!”

Yup. That’s real-world, and not indicated. See my post on 11/21/2017 2:03:52 PM for more details. It was driving 50 MPH where permissible (some states like Michigan have higher minimum speed limits)

^^^
(continued...)

My best tank ever delivered almost 52 MPG (US). Mind you, that was with a 2,000 ft altitude advantage from VA to FL. My total average in over 2.5 years of ownership in mixed driving is 37.34 MPG (US). All measures are actual (not “indicated” on car info system).

You can’t believe this because of what you believe about diesels. Rather than adjusting your beliefs to conform to the facts, you just disbelieve the facts. I’m okay with that. I get very respectable fuel economy, and I love my car, regardless of your (dis)beliefs.

US, other than towing (trucks), towel has been thrown in for some time.
Europe is quickly figuring out diesel is a dead-end.