# How many would buy a diesel if offered?



## schley (May 26, 2005)

If offered who would buy their model BMW in a diesel? Gas mileage would go up at least 33-50%.:thumbup: Yes the premium for the engine would be a couple grand probably.


----------



## gbelton (Aug 3, 2003)

Vote 1


----------



## AW328i (Aug 14, 2006)

15000 miles per year at 20 mpg and a 15 gallon tank would take 50 tanks of gas at 3.00 bucks a gallon that's (750 gallons x $3.00) $2250.00 a year. At 25 mpg it would cost (600 gallons x $3.00) 1800.00 a year. 30 mpg - $1500.00, 35mpg - $1287.00, etc. So it depends on what your getting now as opposed to what you would get then! From 20- 30 mpg, you would save 450.00 a year. After five years you will have offset the "couple" grand price of the diesel!


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

Hopefully BMW will offer diesels in the US soon and they will warranty the use of biodiesel...the higher % the better. VW sanctions 5% max biodiesel for their warranty (although many people use up to 100% biodiesel with no problems). 

Not only would BMW diesels provide relief from less desireable hybrid options they would allow us to use renewable bio sources of fuel...not an option in the current BMWNA gas lineup.


----------



## AW328i (Aug 14, 2006)

I know bmw was working on a "turbo steamer" hybrid that uses engine heat exchangers to produce steam to help power the engine etc. Supposedly adding 10-15% better fuel economy and power!!!!


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

Gas: 15000 miles / 20 mpg * $3.3 = 2475

Diesel: 15000 miles / 35 mpg * $3.3 = $1414

So in less than 2 years the diesel would pay for itself. I'd be all over that. Especially as I lease so the savings would come much faster.


----------



## Tanning machine (Feb 21, 2002)

Not sure I'd pay extra for it, but I'd love to have the option to consider it. For city driving, a diesel probably is a better choice (low-end torque, etc.)

Is there a reason a diesel engined car would cost more? Putting aside certification costs, etc., aren't they generally no more expensive for a roughly equivalent engine?


----------



## whiskey.org (Sep 9, 2005)

Tanning machine said:


> Not sure I'd pay extra for it, but I'd love to have the option to consider it. For city driving, a diesel probably is a better choice (low-end torque, etc.)
> 
> Is there a reason a diesel engined car would cost more? Putting aside certification costs, etc., aren't they generally no more expensive for a roughly equivalent engine?


diesels are built much heavier than gas engines

the engine is more expensive


----------



## indy-rich (Aug 16, 2005)

I'd go even higher on the mileage estimates. A few years ago, we took a jaunt from London through France to the Nurburgring in a friends 530d. With four guys and luggage, we averaged 47 mpg round trip. And the car was a torque monster as well feeling very spirited as well as being lock solid at 80-90 mph cruise. The European diesels are amazing cars.


----------



## BmW745On19's (Aug 12, 2005)

I'd only go diesel if they made a 745/750d with about the same performance specs as the 745/750i for around the same price.


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

Tanning machine said:


> Not sure I'd pay extra for it, but I'd love to have the option to consider it. For city driving, a diesel probably is a better choice (low-end torque, etc.)
> 
> Is there a reason a diesel engined car would cost more? Putting aside certification costs, etc., aren't they generally no more expensive for a roughly equivalent engine?


Not sure of the economics but diesel fuel ignites by compression rather than spark...the ratio is usually around 23:1 vs about 10:1 in a gas engine. Therefore the engine is built more "heavy duty" to absorb the increased stress.....am I right on this one? One would think that the elimination of the spark plugs, distributor, etc would lower the cost of the engine but I'm sure there's more to it than that. Maybe the car makers just charge more for diesels "because they can".

Side note: My diesel Beetle left Oregon today...should arrive by Friday in LA....YAY


----------



## LmtdSlip (May 28, 2003)

Diesel would be the perfect option for the mommy mobile. I wouldnt hesitate to buy my wife a diesel as long as there wasnt a price penalty.

Id have to evaluate the performance for my daily driver.


----------



## jhanlon (Jun 5, 2006)

I just returned from a week spent driving more than 2500 km from the north of Holland to the south of France. The majority of BMWs seen were diesel models. The Europeans must know something ...

Jim Hanlon


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

BmW745On19's said:


> I'd only go diesel if they made a 745/750d with about the same performance specs as the 745/750i for around the same price.


They already make a 745d (E65).

3.9 liter, V8, 300hp (so what) but a heart stopping 700Nm of torque ... 

To top it off, it gets 9.5l/100km (average) fuel economy. Highway fuel economy is 7.2l/100km which is just insane for a car that weighs 2115kg.

The 750i gets 11.4l/100km and weighs 1985kg for comparison.

A few years ago, I drove a 740d (E38) and I was shocked. Fabulous torque!

No clue what they would cost in the US, but here the 745d starts at 137,000 EUR ($175,000 USD) vs 131,500 EUR ($168,300 USD) for the 750i.

.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

LmtdSlip said:


> Diesel would be the perfect option for the mommy mobile. I wouldnt hesitate to buy my wife a diesel as long as there wasnt a price penalty.
> 
> Id have to evaluate the performance for my daily driver.


Diesel would be the perfect option for my daily driver. I'm buying the M Coupe for performance


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

I pick up my VW TDI in 12 hours (have to get my butt to Fontana in the morning via Greyhound....uggg).....I'll let you know just how miserable it is to drive (haha) in the General Automotive forum.


----------



## schley (May 26, 2005)

MARCUS330i said:


> I pick up my VW TDI in 12 hours (have to get my butt to Fontana in the morning via Greyhound....uggg).....I'll let you know just how miserable it is to drive (haha) in the Gerenal Automotive forum.


awesome..... post some pictures............

and post some pictures of the car as well


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

MARCUS330i said:


> Not sure of the economics but diesel fuel ignites by compression rather than spark...the ratio is usually around 23:1 vs about 10:1 in a gas engine. Therefore the engine is built more "heavy duty" to absorb the increased stress.....am I right on this one? One would think that the elimination of the spark plugs, distributor, etc would lower the cost of the engine but I'm sure there's more to it than that. Maybe the car makers just charge more for diesels "because they can".
> 
> Side note: My diesel Beetle left Oregon today...should arrive by Friday in LA....YAY


Right, the engine internals have to be much beefier to handle all the stress. The injectors are also more complicated as they need to work at higher pressures.

Yes they cost more initially, but fuel savings should cut into that over time. The other component is that diesels tend to last much, much longer than gas engines, so you're buying a product that should depreciate slower.


----------



## schley (May 26, 2005)

iateyourcheese said:


> Right, the engine internals have to be much beefier to handle all the stress. The injectors are also more complicated as they need to work at higher pressures.
> 
> Yes they cost more initially, but fuel savings should cut into that over time. The other component is that diesels tend to last much, much longer than gas engines, so you're buying a product that should depreciate slower.


The body will wear out before the engine will in many cases.:thumbup:


----------



## wag-zhp (Apr 8, 2004)

LmtdSlip said:


> Diesel would be the perfect option for the mommy mobile. I wouldnt hesitate to buy my wife a diesel as long as there wasnt a price penalty.
> 
> Id have to evaluate the performance for my daily driver.


+1 I might consider one for a daily driver, but would probably need something else for track/weekends.


----------



## spots (Apr 11, 2006)

One thing to keep in mind is the maintenance costs are higher on diesels. This will offset some of the fuel savings.
I have a Passat TDI now that is being replaced by the BMW.
Gas engines these days last 200k no problem. 
Clean fuel is critical for the modern diesel engine.
I would purchase a diesel BMW if it were available in North America.


----------



## flowbmw (Aug 31, 2006)

I would if I needed a sedan or a SUV. I think the X3/X5 would be the most logical choice for one here in the states, maybe also for the 1-series (to go after the diesel VW crowd).

2009 will be interesting, for sure.

Ed


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

flowbmw said:


> I would if I needed a sedan or a SUV. I think the X3/X5 would be the most logical choice for one here in the states, maybe also for the 1-series (to go after the diesel VW crowd).
> 
> 2009 will be interesting, for sure.
> 
> Ed


Either a 3 or 5 series touring would be my personal preference, but I suspect one of the X-series would be the first to see a diesel.


----------



## damon141 (Aug 22, 2006)

I for one would love to see a diesel powered BMW here in the states, there isnt a better time than now to bring one out since premium gas prices are around the same as diesel.

Like mentioned before diesel engines are much stonger than gasoline engines, for example I have a Cummins work truck with 275k miles with no major problems to date.


----------



## vexed (Dec 22, 2001)

After reading about the 330d in C/D I want one. Low end grunt and good mileage. I can't go 100 here so the loss of some quickness off the line is not important.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

I voted yes but BMW is on the way to pricing themselves out of our range.

With the Premium Package our 2004 325i MSRP was $33,820.
A 2007 328i with Premium Package is $36,245.
A 2008 330d with the Premium Package could be close to $40,000


----------



## Scummy (May 2, 2006)

Heck yes...after all zee Germans did invent the diesel as well as perfect it!


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

Diesel experiment Number One: (so far it's great....just drove it down from Fontana) This little diesel has lots of pull on the freeway......so far I'm really impressed.


----------



## mclaren (Jan 5, 2005)

Back in 1979 I bought a new M-B diesel. They were popular back then. After I drove it about 1,000 miles the engine started making noise. I took it to the dealer and when I got it back the problem was fixed. After another 500 miles the noise returned. Turned out that a diesel additive called Siloo ( or something like that ) was required and I had to put some in with each fill-up. The acceleration was pathetic. I switched to a BMW in 1980. A friend bought a turbo diesel M-B a couple of years later and it performed much better but I really think diesels are dangerous from an accident avoidance perspective.


----------



## schley (May 26, 2005)

mclaren said:


> Back in 1979 I bought a new M-B diesel. They were popular back then. After I drove it about 1,000 miles the engine started making noise. I took it to the dealer and when I got it back the problem was fixed. After another 500 miles the noise returned. Turned out that a diesel additive called Siloo ( or something like that ) was required and I had to put some in with each fill-up. The acceleration was pathetic. I switched to a BMW in 1980. A friend bought a turbo diesel M-B a couple of years later and it performed much better but I really think diesels are dangerous from an accident avoidance perspective.


We are almost 30 years from 1979 and I agree that diesels did earn a reputation as dirty, loud, polluting cars then. I certainly think that todays diesels are much more refined than decades ago.

What do you mean from an accident avoidance perspective?


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

People perceive that diesels are too slow and might not get you out of a sticky situation if you need a sudden burst of power. (merging onto a busy freeway for example)....I'm just guessing that's what Mclaren meant.

Today's turbo diesels are nothing like that....from all that I've read the 535d is wicked fast.
My Beetle has lots of reserve pull in 5th gear on the freeway. No, it's not a BMW 325 or 330 but I don't think safety is compromised.


----------



## normcaldwell (Dec 8, 2003)

I see people drive unsafely all the time. It doesn't matter whether their vehicle is diesel or petrol powered.

I had a MB E320 CDI for the better part of the last year. These new turbo-diesels have fuel delivery systems and variable nozzle turbochargers that make them a pleasure to drive. Loads of push!

However, even with VNT (variable nozzle technology), there is still discernable lag. I'm not fond of lag. I understand the 535d has small-larger sequential turbos to deal with the issue. I'd love to drive one of those and see how it feels!

The U.S. diesel fuel refinery and delivery system has some ways to go to refine enough of the ULSD for increased demand. I hope the progress continues, as well engineered diesel autos will change the way a lot of folks think about diesel. When that happens, the demand will increase; as well due to higher fuel prices all around.


----------



## spots (Apr 11, 2006)

mclaren said:


> Back in 1979 I bought a new M-B diesel. They were popular back then. After I drove it about 1,000 miles the engine started making noise. I took it to the dealer and when I got it back the problem was fixed. After another 500 miles the noise returned. Turned out that a diesel additive called Siloo ( or something like that ) was required and I had to put some in with each fill-up. The acceleration was pathetic. I switched to a BMW in 1980. A friend bought a turbo diesel M-B a couple of years later and it performed much better but I really think diesels are dangerous from an accident avoidance perspective.


I remember the 240 and 300d from back then. Transport trucks would pass you on the hills.
You can thank GM and their dismal diesels in the '70s and 80's for making the public feel diesels are dirty and smelly and slow. The VW TDI will run circles around a 4 cyl gasser VW. It will pull the hills on the interstates and not lose one MPH. Not dangerous at all.
Does anyone remember the BMW diesel in the Lincoln Continentals?


----------



## ProRail (May 31, 2006)

mclaren said:


> Back in 1979 I bought a new M-B diesel. They were popular back then. After I drove it about 1,000 miles the engine started making noise. I took it to the dealer and when I got it back the problem was fixed. After another 500 miles the noise returned. Turned out that a diesel additive called Siloo ( or something like that ) was required and I had to put some in with each fill-up. The acceleration was pathetic. I switched to a BMW in 1980. A friend bought a turbo diesel M-B a couple of years later and it performed much better but I really think diesels are dangerous from an accident avoidance perspective.


On the other side of the Atlantic (both UK and Europe) they don't seem to have any problem with the acceleration. Mind you, this is with smaller engines, on average, than we demand to have here. Of course, it could be that they have refined their driving skills a bit more and pay A LOT more attention to what's happening around them on the road.


----------



## mclaren (Jan 5, 2005)

schley said:


> We are almost 30 years from 1979 and I agree that diesels did earn a reputation as dirty, loud, polluting cars then. I certainly think that todays diesels are much more refined than decades ago.
> 
> What do you mean from an accident avoidance perspective?


Accident avoidance ... being able to accelerate quickly to avoid an accident.


----------



## schley (May 26, 2005)

mclaren said:


> Accident avoidance ... being able to accelerate quickly to avoid an accident.


ok i can't resist I'm usually above this but nonetheless.

So you are saying braking isn't involved in accident avoidance? We should just hit the gas and say a prayer? Don't worry about traction/steering? These are all factors of accident avoidance are they not? Probably much bigger factors at that.

I thought you knew something I didn't when you said accident avoidance, I was thinking I wonder exactly what he means?

Turns out what you meant to say is that driving a diesel engine car might deter one from being able to accelerate quickly when needed to avoid a possible accident?

I asked a truely non smart ass question, don't get too cocky when you actually didn't explain yourself very accurately. love ya don't tell ya enough


----------



## bten (Sep 22, 2002)

flowbmw said:


> I would if I needed a sedan or a SUV. I think the X3/X5 would be the most logical choice for one here in the states, maybe also for the 1-series (to go after the diesel VW crowd).
> 
> 2009 will be interesting, for sure.
> 
> Ed


I think a 3 liter diesel would be sweet in an X5. :thumbup:


----------



## MarcusSDCA (Jan 14, 2004)

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/diesel-reborn/20060830102909990001

Intersting article...how about that VW Lupo?? It's a really small car but 118 mpg??? Wow.


----------



## MG67 (Aug 19, 2003)

I would be all over a 335d...


----------



## Ron_jeremy (Apr 3, 2006)

bten said:


> I think a 3 liter diesel would be sweet in an X5. :thumbup:


Well, it is, it's the perfect match up!
In Europe, X5 3.0D is the one that sells really, because of MPG and aftermarket demand.
 
I guess 8 out of 10 X5, are sold with diesel engines in EU.
:dunno:


----------

