The 3 reports for the diesel Jetta are very consistent with what mine used (routine driving not towing the trailer, 5.5 L/100 km) and also very consistent with what my dad's 2011 Golf TDI uses with him driving it. Fuelly suggests 6.1 L/100 km with hundreds of users reporting for each model year. Fuelly reports 6.0 L/100 km for the hybrid Jetta with 39 users reporting. I'd say it's a fair statement that the real-world consumption is about the same, despite the EPA numbers being very optimistic for the hybrid and very pessimistic for the diesel.
anyone switched from gas to diesel car and never looked back?
- Thread starter SkyRider
- Start date
The 3 reports for the diesel Jetta are very consistent with what mine used (routine driving not towing the trailer, 5.5 L/100 km) and also very consistent with what my dad's 2011 Golf TDI uses with him driving it. Fuelly suggests 6.1 L/100 km with hundreds of users reporting for each model year. Fuelly reports 6.0 L/100 km for the hybrid Jetta with 39 users reporting. I'd say it's a fair statement that the real-world consumption is about the same, despite the EPA numbers being very optimistic for the hybrid and very pessimistic for the diesel.
On a similar note, if you select the Jetta and filter for "Gas L4" the 2014 model suggests 7.9 L/100 km. The thing that I HATE about Fuelly is that it applies no idiot-proofing to the type of engine selected and there is no way to filter between multiple different engines of the same configuration. On a 2014 Jetta, there are three different possible "Gas L4" engines: the Flintstone-era 2.slow (non-turbo 8-valve 115 hp), the high-performance 2.0 TSI (GLI only), and the new 1.8 TSI which is meant to be the high-production-volume choice. So it's likely that the 1.8 TSI does better than 7.9 offsetting the 2.slow and 2.0 TSI that probably do worse ... but there is no way to tell by how much and no way to tell how many of either.
The 9-ish L/100 km reported for the 2006 through 2013 models will be a mixture of 2.slow and 2.0 TSI, since the 1.8 TSI wasn't out yet.
Selecting "Gas L5" means the old 2.5, and that also gives 9-ish L/100 km ... pretty close to EPA estimates. The 2008-onward reported EPA numbers do okay for "conventional" powertrains ... non-hybrid, non-turbo, no stop/start, gasoline engines.
The 9-ish L/100 km reported for the 2006 through 2013 models will be a mixture of 2.slow and 2.0 TSI, since the 1.8 TSI wasn't out yet.
Selecting "Gas L5" means the old 2.5, and that also gives 9-ish L/100 km ... pretty close to EPA estimates. The 2008-onward reported EPA numbers do okay for "conventional" powertrains ... non-hybrid, non-turbo, no stop/start, gasoline engines.
When I made the switch to diesel I thought I was never coming back, but I wanted a truck. North American market diesel pickups are for people that require a real truck a lot of the time, pull big loads frequently and put on some miles. The initial cost to upgrade to diesel had a model that simply wouldn't work for me, I do 50k a year, but a 12k jump in sticker price put that vehicle off my radar. Now that GM is talking about reintroducing the canyon/Sonoma mid size truck with an Isuzu based diesel I will be looking hard at that option. I had a love/hate relationship with my TDI jetta, but BMW is to pricey, I don't need a sprinter, MB is out of my league and the Chevy cruze isn't my cup of tea. I would go back to diesel in a heart beat if they would put one in a vehicle I could make use of.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
I hear you, but for all we know, the next 100 diesel users are going to report worse consumption, bringing the numbers down. Or for all I know, the opposite may happen, bringing the numbers higher.
All I'm saying is that the sample is way too small, and the numbers are going to change as soon as more people go and post their own numbers.
Mid-size bare bones diesel pickup truck please. Nothing fancy. Thanks.
ps, minimum 3500lbs. towing, thanks again
Last edited:
I have been driving my diesel van for 7 yrs. I used to love it. Lots of power, never had a cold start issue for the first 4 yrs, and it gets 20+ mpg, not bad for an 8500 lb van that can tow a house if needed. Fast fwd to now. A gas powered van the same as min would have cost $7000 less to buy initially, and would go 100-150 kms less per fill up. However, with current diesel prices, I am paying $25 more per fillup, so that extra 100-150 kms of range is more than negated. Add into that the $ I have thrown at it to try to get the cold start issues taken care of, and I am no longer a diesel proponent. If you need to tow a 35 ft yacht, then sure diesel is the best option. But in most circumstances, the added MPG is negated by the higher cost of diesel anymore.
Is that the 6.5L that your having cold starting issues with?.
The new emissions standards on diesel engines is making ownership very difficult to justify as well. Circa 2000 many 3/4 ton Diesel pickups were getting 11-12L/100km mpg and were much more reliable than the newer trucks mostly because of this.
7 and 8 speed transmissions along with direct port fuel injection means that gas fuel mileage has improved significantly over the last ten years whereas diesel fuel mileage has actually got worse.
An idea I am toying with is a BT Cummins repower in an old Ford pickup (likely a Bronco actually). The older Cummins diesels are much simpler more reliable than the newer ones and they are not choked up by layers upon layers of emissions control systems. Realistic figures for a stock 4BT 3.9L Cummins in a 78/79 Bronco mated to a ZF 5-speed manual are 9-10L/100km. A few tuning measures (injector timing, intercooler, big exhaust) can bump that down to 8-9L/100km. Not bad for a motor putting out 400 ft*lbs of torque.
Iceman
Well-known member
I kno I won't be greeting rid of my 05 ram 2500hd anytime soon. I also know the chev 6.5 can't touch the cummins 5.9. I get great mileage(for a heavy truck) it's reliable, and with 650ft/lbs of torque, I can pull whatever I want.
Sunny, still wondering when you are gonna "upgrade" to a zero electric motorcycle?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sunny, still wondering when you are gonna "upgrade" to a zero electric motorcycle?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When Honda makes one. Then I can keep you and Murf happy in one swoop.
Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk
Iceman
Well-known member
patience Grasshopper, give it 6 mths till the Isuzu shows up and we'll have a look. The Isuzu engine/truck works everywhere else in the world, lets pray the North American version doesn't get botched.
GM and Isuzu in one product? You seeking punishment that badly?
Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk
Thanks for the heads up, googling Isuzu in 3..2...1...
Roomie
Banned
Aren't you the guy who is all for Honda hybrids?
Well, right now you don't have too many options for new stuff. If you wanted to go 3/4 or 1 ton I'd suggest looking at used rigs around 2000ish, the new stuff sucks and costs an arm and a leg.
I understand that there is a Ram 1500 diesel option coming to market very soon but I have no idea what the cost difference would be versus a gas version. That's also not a mid-size which you're after.
So.... Older Toyota T100 diesel, can you even get those in North America?
The more I look into a Cummins 4BT repower the more I like it. I don't have the added costs of heavy duty maintenance on brakes and suspension in an older 1/2 Ton chassis but I do get the significant fuel mileage improvements from an old carb'd V8 to a dead simple diesel power plant that is not handcuffed by stringent emissions standards. My approximate budget is $6000 for the Bronco and $5000 for the Cummins swap.
Wait, you dont own a Honda? Money where your mouth is huh?
