New Diesels to come: high diesel fuel costs

[rh71]

I did the math... I currently drive a 14mpg(US) SUV right now.

If I drove 12k miles/yr...
3.0si [21mpg @ $3.42/gal] = $72/mo. savings
3.0sd [28mpg @ $3.59/gal] = $106/mo. savings (to use toward the $2k premium for 3.0sd)
difference between the two 6-cyl: $34/mo. savings

Driving 6k miles/yr (which I actually do), and those savings (or costs if you currently don't own a 14mpg SUV) are further cut in half... which isn't exactly a lot of money a month, given the fact you just dropped $60k.

My opinion - just drive the car you actually like.

[Craig]

Yes, from what I've heard, the BMW diesel will require urea. The 07 Mercedes did not, and the 08 Mercedes does...

I've also heard the 08 Mercedes fuel mileage isn't as good as the 07.


Craig

[chonko]

Originally Posted by Craig

Yes, from what I've heard, the BMW diesel will require urea. The 07 Mercedes did not, and the 08 Mercedes does...

I've also heard the 08 Mercedes fuel mileage isn't as good as the 07.


Craig

You reckon with the supposed reduction in sulphur content in 2008 there will still be the need for Urea?

[jwhkc]

I believe bluetec technology is directed toward the reduction of nitrogen oxide compounds rather than sulphur.

[Fredo]

Diesels are not just about the economy....because of the torque they have and the fact it is produced so low down in the rev range they suit the X5 much better. Yes they rattle a bit on start up and don't sound as good high up the rev range but as an everyday car to drive they are far,far superior. Once you've had a diesel it seems very antequated having to really rev a car to get the performance out of it.

The only BMW petrol engined cars that are superior are the M/// cars. There is a case for the 335i but the 335d is a fantastic car too.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Craig

Yes, from what I've heard, the BMW diesel will require urea. The 07 Mercedes did not, and the 08 Mercedes does...

I've also heard the 08 Mercedes fuel mileage isn't as good as the 07.


Craig

The '08 emissions standards are tougher, hence the need for urea injection on both the MB and BMW models. Expect the mileage to take a hit, but it shouldn't be a big factor. More important to me is that these will be new generation engines, with the related first-year problems. None of the current generation of BMW diesels will meet the '08 standards. When they come out in late '08 (still a rumour, but with the press releases out a pretty safe bet) you can be on the bleeding edge. While BMW has built lots of diesels, they haven't yet built this generation.

Hmmm, rattles on start-up, no revs, first model year for the new engines, and theoretically a reduced engine life due to the higher peak cylinder pressures. Just get a 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine when they come out, IMO.

[rh71]

Originally Posted by JCL

Hmmm, rattles on start-up, no revs, first model year for the new engines, and theoretically a reduced engine life due to the higher peak cylinder pressures. Just get a 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine when they come out, IMO.

Sign me up. But the wait for those still suck.

[Fastbuck]

Originally Posted by JCL

Hmmm, rattles on start-up, no revs, first model year for the new engines, and theoretically a reduced engine life due to the higher peak cylinder pressures. Just get a 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine when they come out, IMO.

The 3.0 twin turbo diesel engine has been in existance longer than the 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine. Neither does it exhibit the negative characteristics you describe. The diesel will far outlast the petrol engine.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by Fastbuck

The 3.0 twin turbo diesel engine has been in existance longer than the 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine. Neither does it exhibit the negative characteristics you describe. The diesel will far outlast the petrol engine.

The 3.0 tt diesel has been around longer, but it isn't legal in North America. Mercedes has said that when the new 2008 Bluetec comes to North America with the urea injection it will in fact be a new engine. BMW may just add the urea injection to the existing 3.0 model, but with the additional controls required it will be at least a newer generation. I wouldn't expect the crank/pistons/block to change. Maybe there will be no first year issues, there is a first time for everything.

I didn't describe the negative characteristics, Fredo did. I figure that since he has one he should know. My experience with modern diesels is with rental cars in Europe, and so hasn't included the 3.0 tt, but it has included other recent diesels up to the 530d.

Why would you expect the diesel to outlast the petrol engine? You don't think that peak cylinder pressures will have any effect? Diesels outlasted petrol engines when they were built on truck engine blocks, not when they are both designed for lighter weight automotive applications.

[Judyd]

Originally Posted by JCL

The '08 emissions standards are tougher, hence the need for urea injection on both the MB and BMW models. Expect the mileage to take a hit, but it shouldn't be a big factor. More important to me is that these will be new generation engines, with the related first-year problems. None of the current generation of BMW diesels will meet the '08 standards. When they come out in late '08 (still a rumour, but with the press releases out a pretty safe bet) you can be on the bleeding edge. While BMW has built lots of diesels, they haven't yet built this generation.

Hmmm, rattles on start-up, no revs, first model year for the new engines, and theoretically a reduced engine life due to the higher peak cylinder pressures. Just get a 3.0 twin turbo petrol engine when they come out, IMO.

Thanks, JCL, and others, that was just the kind of info I was looking for. I think I'll pass on the diesels this time around. I've been burned too many times being an "early adopter" and think this is a time to pass on "bleeding edge" for me.