Are Diesels Really Cost Effective?

German auto touring club ADAC (Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club e.V.) has published its annual total cost of ownership (TCO) comparison of diesel and gasoline versions of vehicles currently on the German market.

For context, here’s a translation of the boilerplate. The text obviously applies only to the situation in Germany:

In times of continuously rising fuel prices, diesel vehicles offer their owners two advantages: high fuel economy and lower prices at the pump. As the current cost comparison by ADAC shows, most diesels are cheaper to own if you drive more than 9,000 miles annually. Even below 6,000 miles per year, the diesel variant is the cheaper option overall for nearly 50% of new models on the market.

However, the comparison of 560 diesel/gasoline pairs also showed that the diesel option was not preferable in every case. In particular, this applies to models for which the diesel variant is priced much higher than the gasoline one. The higher annual license fees, higher insurance premiums and shorter service intervals can also make the cost of owning a diesel look bad.

An example calculation from the ADAC comparison chart shows that the annual savings amount to real money. At 9,000 miles annually, a BMW 320d with particulate filter costs nearly €1,600 (18%) less to operate (in each of the first four years) than the 320si does. (At 12,000 miles per year, the Jeep Commander 3.0 CRD Sport AT even delivers savings of 1,920 Euros (15%) relative to the Jeep Commander 4.7 Sport AT.)

ADAC members can access the complete table of all 560 pairings.

One reason for the improved economics of diesels is that particulate filters are standard for many models, which increases resale value. Another is that prices at the pump are significantly higher this year compared to last. This has a much greater impact on gasoline models, which consume a greater volume of fuel.

For more detail follow the link:



Full 2006 SEMA Auto Show Gallery link

2006 SEMA Auto Show Photo Gallery

We've also added more photos to our Paris to Bejing rally photo gallery so be sure to check them out!

Mercedes-Benz Paris to Bejing Photo Gallery

More photos in our show photo galleries...

AutoSpies.com Photo Galleries


Read Article

johannas - 11/1/2006 10:00:06 AM

0 Boost

Looks like an insignificant technicality.

IamEvilHomer - 11/1/2006 11:14:17 AM

+1 Boost

johannas- how is that? The TDI's and Bluetec are goint to take off next year.

Give me a TDI R8 :)

johannas - 11/1/2006 2:04:06 PM

+1 Boost

That's what I'm saying. Diesel's are cost effecient. And the chart/image on this page shows that in every milage category they are cheaper to operate and maintain.

bigslick83 - 11/1/2006 11:21:49 AM

+1 Boost

okay so i read this and think its gonna be bashing diesels but from what i get it actually says that diesels are cheaper than their gasoline counterparts by quite a bit on all of these models. what is that in there about shorter intervals between service for diesels? ive never heard that, in fact ive always heard the exact opposite. that diesels require less maintinance

chewy - 11/1/2006 8:10:24 PM

-1 Boost

False, in Europe ALL cars run over 10,000 Miles, about 15,000 Miles before service. Much better for the environment compared to changing oil every 3,000 miles in your hybrid.

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS - 11/1/2006 1:47:12 PM

+1 Boost

Here the Diesel is priced about 10 pence per Litre more than Petrol.

And Diesel Vehicles Cost MORE than their Petrol variants

But it is still much better to buy a Diesel Powered Vehicle (Not All Are Better Than Petrol)

So:
GOLF/A3/LEON/OCTAVIA 2.0L TDIs = GOOD
MB 270CDI = Not So Good
Saab Diesel = BAD

hybridfarce - 11/1/2006 8:48:50 PM

+1 Boost

I have the same concern as Will about service interval. Does the new class of lower emissions diesels (Bluetec, etc.) require any more maintence than the typical diesels in this study (i.e., filters, urea)?

justinT - 11/3/2006 11:44:36 AM

+1 Boost

I agree about taxes on fuels (diesel and gas) in europe. In the UK, about 75 percent of what you pay at the pump goes to the government. most people there are pissed about it because they don't see where that money is going. Same thing in Germany, although I don't beleive it's as high as 75%.

I like the idea of having a high tax on fuel where public transportation is sufficient because it forces more people to use the public transportation and limit their driving. I rode a bike and walked more in 4 months in Germany that I did practically the rest of my life.

In the US, public transportation simply isn't a viable option outside of the major metropolitan areas.