By on February 19, 2011

GM Inside News reports

Sources familiar with GM engineering were able to confirm to GMI that the diesel option is currently slated for the 2013 Cruze. The engineering sources also confirmed that the engine is a 2.0-liter with the RPO code of ‘LUZ.’ Power output or fuel economy figures are unclear at this time, however test mules of the Cruze diesel are operating now in metro Detroit.

In Australia the Holden Cruze CDX has a 2.0-liter diesel engine. In that application the car produces approximately 147 horsepower and 235 feet-pounds of torque. Converting from the Australian fuel economy figures, the Cruze CDX is rated at 34 miles per-gallon in combined driving. It is unclear if the same 2.0-liter diesel will be in the North American Cruze, but one is compelled to assume that will be the case.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

79 Comments on “Diesel Cruze Coming?...”


  • avatar
    blowfish

    GM & diesels somehow bring back people to think of the good old 5.7.
    Something when Late Old Teddy was alive, everytime he wanted to run office folks would bring out Chappadiquick. One form SNL, ask why he was wet, he said i swam across the river!
     

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      The Olds 5.7 Diesel, along with the Vega, have become these great “boogie men” for internet chat boards; a way of reminding people that no matter how hard they try, GM will never get beyond those gaffes. In reality very few people are brought back to the old 5.7 Diesel by much of anything, let alone mention of a new Diesel from GM.
       
      I’ve learned to refrain from “if such-and-such car maker does X, I will definitely buy it” absolutes (because if I were able to follow through I’d have a 3-door Saturn Astra in my driveway, along with a few other cars) a Diesel Cruze, especially if the horsepower and torque numbers above are accurate, would be a compelling proposition to me as a replacement for my Jetta TDI.

    • 0 avatar

      “a way of reminding people that no matter how hard they try, GM will never get beyond those gaffes.”

      History takes care of that for me. It’s very telling how references to 40- and 30-year-old boondoggles are still so very relevant when speaking of GM. What that says is, the company hasn’t managed to crawl out from under the weight of an almost half-century record of engineering and manufacturing incompetence.

      But yeah, sure, sign me up for one of these Daewoo Diesels… I’m sure they’re much better…

    • 0 avatar
      HoldenSSVSE

      Ya, those GM diesels in Europe are so bad that Honda is buying them from GM to put them in their cars. Didn’t take long for the GM can’t build a diesel engine comment to come up.

      You know, I’ll never buy a Honda after my sister’s experience on her ’81. That thing rusted out faster than a piece of cast iron cookware in the pouring rain.

      See how stupid the game is?

    • 0 avatar
      jaje

      HoldenSSVSE – A little background as your comment is a little misleading.  Honda at first did use the Circle L – 1.7 liter diesel – that was designed and made by Isuzu Diesel in Poland.  Honda used it in its Civic in the late 90’s and early 00’s.  GM uses these engines in its Opel cars – but GM did not design nor develop this engine as Isuzu still develops and builds it.  Ironically – Honda and GM reciprocated on engines for a short time where the Isuzu 1.7 diesel (with common rail direct injection) in its Civic and GM then put the Hondas J35 dohc v6 engine in its cars (Saturn).  In the end Honda no longer uses an outside sourced diesel engine from any other OEM since ~ 2003 as Honda developed its own in house 2.2 liter i-CTDi then evolved it to the 2.2 liter i-DTEC in 2007.
       
      Also keep in mind that GM bought controlling share of Isuzu in 2003 long after Honda was using the Isuzu 1.7 diesel engine.  GM later formed DMAX in 2003 to have Isuzu bring its decades of “successful” diesel engine making experience to overhaul GM’s old Duramax design which it has made it a class leader.  Moral of this is that GM relies heavily on Isuzu for its diesel expertise and the engine you speak of that Honda used was a Isuzu engine that GM did not build – but GM did actual Honda engines in its cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      @jaje, I believe HoldenSSVSE was making an analogy about people who say the won’t buy a particular car or product now because something happened to someone 30 years ago being a bit short sighted.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m still desperately trying to find a 5.7 GM diesel on the streets for Curbside Classic. Anybody seen one?

  • avatar
    George B

    I’d be interested in a Diesel Cruze.  Better looking than a Diesel Jetta and replacement part will probably be less expensive.  GM engines and transmissions have been relatively good in the last decade.

    • 0 avatar
      Honda From Hell

      The jetta TDI will probably have a more refined, tested, and better tuned diesel than the GM unit. Even though I don’t have a great trust in some volkswagen gas engines, I believe that the jetta TDI will have much better engine reliability/stability over time as well.

    • 0 avatar
      jaje

      GM uses the Isuzu Circle L 1.7 liter engine in its Opel line too.  It is a very good engine and has evolved well.  I wish there would be more options for diesel choices especially by American automakers and if the Cruze gets one that then creates more competition.  Diesels are overpriced in the US b/c there is little competition and they can charge significantly higher prices and make more profit.  The common delta of a modern diesel engine over a standard petrol engine is ~ $1k at this time versus $3-$5k for a parallel hybrid and $10-$15k for a series hybrid.  The diesel will get you near hybrid hwy miles for substantially less money and environmental impact of production and transportation costs (hybrids require substantial transportation of parts (battery manufactured elsewhere) and raw materials to build – a factor not considered once the car is built.

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    34 mpg combined in my mind doesn’t justify the cost of the engine or the fuel.
     
    How is it the European diesel Fiesta gets 70 mpg hwy and the Cruze manages only 34 mpg combined? (and yes I realize the Fiesta is a smaller lighter car)

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      34 mpg combined is averaged with city mpg, favoring city mpg, which likely means that highway mileage is much higher.  Second, Euro testing standards are different.  You just can’t bring it over and expect the same testing.  Third, the imperial gallon is larger than a gallon in the US, which means that it will go farther on a single imperial gallon.  Now, a more accurate comparison vs the Euro diesel Fiesta would be to compare it against the Euro diesel Astra, that way most if not all the conversions go away.
       
      Vauxhall Astra with the 2.0L CDI
      6 Speed 68.9 mpg
      Auto 61.4 mpg
       
      Does that answer your question?
       
      For other references, the 2011 Jetta 2.0L TDI gets 32 and 40 mpg for a COMBINED mpg of 34 mpg.
       

    • 0 avatar
      Diesel Fuel Only

      It’s probably (a) a lighter car, with (b) a smaller engine.
       
      For instance, the 2.0 TDI that VW sells here is the larger of its 4-cyl. diesels.  European/UK customers can opt for a 1.6 (I think) that gets even better mileage.
       
      They also get the Polo, which is smaller than a Golf and when equipped with the Bluemotion TDI (the smaller one), it returns mileage comparable to the afore-mentioned Fiesta.

  • avatar
    Hank

    Not much longer.  Most of the people I knew personally that owned thoses old GM 5.7s are now dead, mostly age related.  Most people under 30 don’t even remember Oldsmobile (heck if Leno’s man on the street were to be believed, they don’t even remember Joe Biden), much less a diesel 88.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Oh, sure.  Will it be a all-wheel drive wagon with a stick as well?

    • 0 avatar
      Lemmy-powered

      I’d buy that!
      (Having bought a diesel wagon with stick in the past, I’m allowed to say so without being called “Euro Boy”)

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      “Will it be a all-wheel drive wagon with a stick as well”

      Judging by VW’s success with the Jetta (and since the Touareg, Passat, wagon, Golf) that wouldn’t be a bad thing. Why is diesel still considered a niche-y might sell proposition when the evidence says you can sell as many as you can make in this hemisphere? (yes I’m aware, no AWD, but apparently that’s not necessary)

      If GM can pay off drivetrain homologation costs in the Cruze for this setup we will see it spread through the lineup. How could that be a bad thing? GM desperately needs a premium choice that helps their fleet average, and torquey drivetrains suit their brand positioning to a “T”.

    • 0 avatar

      That market is about as wide as the panel gaps on a Jetta

  • avatar
    MBella

    You can’t just convert those power and fuel economy figures. When the engine get’s converted to run on our nasty fuel, and conform to our emissions standards, efficiency will be lost, just like with the German diesels.

  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    The engineering sources also confirmed that the engine is a 2.0-liter with the RPO code of ‘LUZ’ ‘LUTZ.’

    There, I fixed it for ya. 

  • avatar
    Steve65

    feet-pounds?

  • avatar
    Beerboy12

    Its about time. I am not mad about diesel but many people are and there honestly needs to be more choice in the US market. The fact that so few (2?) manufacturers offer diesel versions for cars is ridiculous. Time everyone got over themselves and gave the consumer some choices.
    Good on GM for thinking about it.

    • 0 avatar
      tedward

      3, BMW, Merc and VW. Only one of them sells them affordably, and VW’s choice in transmisison tech. leaves them vulnerable to a soft dual clutch competitor (Ford Fiesta style). BMW and Merc are just circle jerking with their prices on what is ultimately a less enjoyable drivetrain technology (the selling points of diesel are elsewhere).

    • 0 avatar
      76triumph

      The MSRP on the 335d is high, but they take $3500 off right away, making it cheaper than a 335i.   Last year you could get $4500 from BMW and $900 from the govt, putting the price in the 328i range.  Oh, and that car has 425 ft/lbs of torque @ 1750 RPM.  Not sure if there are any other cars on the market with that mix of power and mileage.

    • 0 avatar
      Beerboy12

      3 manufacturers and only one choice each & they are overpriced to. Shame on them. BTW the BMW 335d has to be a complete riot to drive. I experienced a 530d and the acceleration was brutal. Pricing is definitely a problem there.
      The selling point of diesels are technical and unfortunately lost on most people. The two main advantages to diesel engines over gas are, diesel detonates rather than burns giving far more energy and that under low throttle, there is no minimum fuel air mixture that needs maintaining.

    • 0 avatar
      Bimmer

      You forgot Audi, yeah it’s technically a rebadged VW, but still.

  • avatar
    mazder3

    This has to be a joke. Code LUZ? Yeah, more like Code LULZ.

  • avatar
    pacificpom2

    Wagon, Check
    Diesel, Check
    AWD, ??
    The diesel downunder is a rattly number almost old school.  Your Cruzes (Cruzi?) are being built there so your diesal may be a better deal. We know the wagon is being built here in Elizabeth as well as the sedan, but I think it is strickly a local/Asia production. Is the diesel fuel in the States a lower quality? I know that the diesel engine down here are required to meet eurocap IV specs which means low sulphur fuel. I cannot understand that the US doesn’t have a higher standard than europe.

    • 0 avatar
      OliverTwist

      No, the diesel fuel in the United States is of ultra low sulfur variety: same as in Europe.
       
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel
       
      The problem is the US Environmental Protection Agency, which insisted on having a separate testing procedure for each motor and gearbox combination. This adds up a lot of money when you want to certify twenty combinations. EPA also insisted on completely different testing procedure than ECE. EPA demands that the timing belts or chains to last at least 100.000 miles without replacement. Ferrari failed at one point and had to redesign the timing chains, using different material that is more durable and longer lasting.
       
      In addition, the United States has product liability regulations that is one of the most onerous in the world, requiring the manufacturers to be responsible for their vehicles sold in the USA. The manufacturers must support the vehicles by carrying the parts and such for up to fifteen years. Reducing the model range and choices, the manufacturers can reduce the overhead cost…
       
      That is why the Americans have one of the lowest amount of choices in body types, motors, gearboxes, and so forth. The Australians have one of the most choices despite the smaller market size.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      <<<EPA demands that the timing belts or chains to last at least 100.000 miles without replacement.>>>
       
      If that really is true, then to the folks over at the EPA I say, Thank You.  There is no reason why a timing belt shouldn’t reliably last to that point anyway.  Whatever “extra” cost that put into the car means that us members of the High Mileage Club will more than save when our vehicles reach old(er) age.  I do get the cost issue of testing all those drivetrain combinations, though.  It’s a bummer if the manufacturer chooses not to offer as many combos because of it, but I can understand why the EPA would require such testing.  There are just too many ways to game the system, and some are pretty good at it already…just look at 32 MPG Traverse as an example.
       
      So why buy a diesel Cruze, over, say a hybrid?  I guess the cost would be the big factor, but if the difference between a modern diesel Cruze LUTZ and a hybrid is say, $3000 in favor of the diesel, for my commuting duties the answer would still be the hybrid.  I get 33 real world, drive as I feel like it MPG out of a hybrid Altima.  Lets assume I get the rated 34 out of the Cruze.  Since anything I buy will be with me for at least 150K, the slightly lower mileage plus the higher cost of diesel pretty much wipes that out.  Maintenance of a diesel is more costly than a hybrid I would think.  If the first generation of Prius batteries are representative of what to expect for lifespan, they are not an issue as most Prius batteries have been lasting the life of the vehicle.  Not to mention the Altima has upper seven second 0-60 performance, and killer brakes to boot.  No smelly fuel or urea to deal with and no particulate issues, though I guess the modern diesels may not have that problem.  Resale?  My car at 150K would be seven years old.  A quick search shows that a clean, 2004 Prius will fetch approx $5000 used.  So why would I choose this over a comparably sized hybrid?  Perhaps a guy who has the luxury of non-stop highway speeds might do better, as the hybrid looses some efficiency luster in that regard, but for most, a hybrid would be the better choice.
       
       

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      <<<EPA demands that the timing belts or chains to last at least 100.000 miles without replacement.>>>

      Yeah that was news to me, my 1997 Escort snaped it’s belt at just over 30,000 miles.  What was the service interval you ask?  Every 30,000 miles. 

      But I do get Golden2Husky’s point.  I have a hard time rationalizing many of these “fuel saving” cars whether hybrid or diesel because (for example) I could buy a stripped (although the level of standard equipment would be quite high) 2011 Sonata GLS with a manual transmission, 2.0ltr DI 4cyl (that makes nearly 3x the power of the 2.5 Iron Duke in my first car [isn\'t technology wonderful]), 6 speed manual transmission, has nearly the interior volume of an Impala, the Sonata will get about 38mpg hwy (yes I usually get what the EPA says I will get), and the Hyundai will cost me about $20,000.  That makes it pretty hard to justify a diesel/hybrid/plug in anything. 

    • 0 avatar
      Pinzgauer

      @ the timing belt thing

      Is this a new requirment?  The timing belt on my 2010 Hyundai Accent is supposed to be changed at 60k as per the manual.  Thats probably the only thing I dont like about the car.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      @ OliverTwist,
      Even the ultra low sulfur fuel sold here has more sulfur than the European fuel. This is why a the Germans have to use different injectors with less precise spray patterns here. As i said above, this is one of the reasons the European diesels are more efficient than their North American counterparts.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      Why would the EPA be involved with timing belt longevity? It has nothing to do with emissions or the environment.

    • 0 avatar

      Why would the EPA be involved with timing belt longevity? It has nothing to do with emissions or the environment.
      Bending a valve might make the engine run less clean?

    • 0 avatar
      Philosophil

      @ Oliver Twist   No offense, but could you provide a reference source for of your claim about the 100,000 mi. timing belt regulation? I did a quick search on the web but was unable to find it.

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      There is no 32 mpg Traverse.  There is a 32 mpg Equinox.  Big difference in size.  I also do agree, that most will not see 32 mpg out of their Equinox, but the EPA test procedure is a joke.

  • avatar
    Sam P

    If the Diesel Cruze is more reliable than the current generation Jetta/Golf TDI is (look at some VW boards for some fun stories about HPFP/fuel system issues in the 2009+ models), GM could have a hot seller on its hands.
     
    And the GM Oldsmobile Diesel adage needs to die. Back in the late 70’s days of the Oldsmobile Diesel, Japanese cars were small oddly-styled rust magnets and German cars were reliable long after their warranties expired. That was 30+ years ago.

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Almost but not quite.  In the early years of the GM 5.7, BMWs were known a Bring Me a Wrecker, Breakdown Motor Works.  The Mercedes part was anvil material though.  But yeah, please.  30 years ago is not relevant, at least as far as this discussion goes.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    I’d love to see more diesel options for passenger cars, so this is great news.  California is the single biggest reason why the US doesn’t see more diesel vehicles.  Manufacturers don’t want to build 49 state vehicles for the US market.
     
    I honestly don’t think diesel cars from the late 1970’s will create enough negative memories to hurt modern diesel sales in a dramatic way.

  • avatar
    dastanley

    Sources familiar with GM engineering were able to confirm to GMI that the diesel option is currently slated for the 2013 Cruze

    “Currently slated”.  I hope this isn’t yet another example of GM over promising and under delivering.  If they really can produce a small diesel Cruze for 2013, then I’ll let others be the beta testers.  Maybe I’ll consider a CPO example down the road.  My trust in GM has to be (re)earned with baby steps.  They squandered it over the decades.  It may take as long to re-earn it with me. 

    • 0 avatar
      OliverTwist

      Same with the GM’s new smaller 4,5-litre Duramax V8 diesel motor. It was production-ready, but GM axed it at last minute.
       
      They kept “considering” about reintroducing the smaller Duramax in GM T900 vehicles and 1500 pick-up trucks ever since.

    • 0 avatar
      aspade

      The Minimax wasn’t production ready.  It was designed.
       
      The factory tooled up to build 500 per shift was nowhere to be seen.
       
      In GM’s defense, the EPA changed the rules on them midgame.
       

  • avatar
    Da Coyote

    I’m glad that GM has finally got their engineering population up to 1% of the MBAs.
    However, ain’t buyin’ no GM cr*p.
    Not now.
    Not ever again.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    What are the advantages of diesels again? If you had a 5.7 back in the early ’80s you had plenty advantages, I mean if you had one that actually ran. At least you never had to smog diesel cars but now that’s changed in California and the rest of the U.S. will fall like Dominos. You may have to retroactively add smog equipment to your Cruze TDI in years to come, who really knows? Imagine resale values then. California passed tough new regulations forcing owners of 2009 and older medium and heavy duty diesel trucks to replace engines all together with 2010 or newer engines on a schedule between 2012 and 2022. Nightmare. Diesels come at a heavy price and nevermind the increased costs of registration, fuel, maintenance… Who needs it?

    • 0 avatar
      Sam P

      What are the advantages of diesels?
       
      Torque. Fuel economy.
       
      Also, if the Obama administration gets the boot in the 2012 election, I somehow doubt that the country will be hamstrung by California emissions.
       
       

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Torgue. Fuel economy.

       Yeah but that doesn’t come for free. Too much baggage for me. The rest of the states will be hamstrung by the EPA withholding federal highway funding. This is a big deal for the EPA. They’re serious.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Look on the bright side. If Obama isn’t shown the door and the EPA isn’t defunded, only the top 4% of the population will be in the market for new cars. What is or isn’t available probably won’t be your problem! Food being a luxury good will occupy much more of your attention.

    • 0 avatar
      76triumph

      I put 5000k miles on a diesel MB A180 w/6sp manual while in Germany last year.  I loved it.  It didn’t have tons of power but low end torque made it zippy around town and there was enough in it to highway cruise at 100+ when traffic allowed.  I average 50 mpg over the 5000 miles.
      I believe the diesel was on par with o cheaper than gasoline there, which unfortunately isn’t the case here.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      So much misinformation, so little time…
      – Depending on where you live, Diesel fuel is less expensive than even regular grade gasoline. Registration will be no more expense as we’re still talking about a passenger car. Maintenance is generally more expensive, but far less frequent. I change the oil on my TDI every 10,000 miles. Try doing that with a gas motor and see how long it lasts.
       
      – The CARB “engine swap” regulation has nothing to do with passenger cars.
       
      – The last time I checked, Audi, BMW, Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, GMC, Mercedes and Volkswagen all offer Diesel engine options in California.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      When I bought my ’06 Powerstroke diesel F-550 I never dreamed California would require an engine swap in 9 years. I did come with delicated emissons that are a European design found on BMWs that likes to eat head gaskets from the excessive heat from the EGR. Diesel cars are currently exempt from this type of persecution because of their relative small numbers but could be next on the list. Do you know what you are buying? The federal clean air act does. Thousand of deaths a year are attributed to diesel fuel particulate matters that aren’t exclusive to just trucks. Diesel cars also emit those baby killing PMs.

    • 0 avatar
      Steven02

      BMW recommends oil changes at 15k, not just diesels.  Many other manufactures are also increasing the length of oil age as well.  My 2004 Mazda 6 recommends 6k.  GM’s oil life system I have heard could be longer than 10k.  3k changes are really only wanted by dealers and your local EZ Lube place.  I would be surprised today to find a car that in the manual recommends a 3k oil change.

    • 0 avatar
      Diesel Fuel Only

      What are the advantages?

      How about 40 mpg on the highway at 75+ MPH with hardly a whisper from under the hood because you’re only turning 2100 RPM.

      And there’s the 500 – 600 mile range without refueling (in the VW turbodiesel at least).

      And better performance at altitude, too, b/c of turbocharging and the lack of a butterfly valve in the throttle (remember Diesel’s are not throttled by air, the intake is theoretically completely unrestricted).
      We drove a Fiat turbo diesel on a trip to France in ’99.  Drove the car for three days all over the place (speed limit on their Motorways was 80 MPH at the time) and used half a tank.  My dad actually thought that the fuel gauge was busted.  I was converted.

  • avatar
    tedward

    ” if the Obama administration gets the boot in the 2012 election, I somehow doubt that the country will be hamstrung by California emissions.”

    oh no, those are here to stay. Even a united (ha!) federal gov. really has limited leverage now over CA emissions standards. That state is one of the world’s largest economies in it’s own right, and the courts, as much as we all take turns bashing them, tend to respect made decisions. Years of court proceedings equals a CA emissions win, as the automakers all have to assume the harsher standards will prevail in order to plan their next gen vehicles.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    I think you guys are excited about nothing.

    The VM Motori SOHC diesel is nothing special. It is way behind VW and the Koreans in just about every aspect from driveabililty, powerband and economy.
    There are lots of good choices from europe and korea especially if you like fwd manual wagons.

  • avatar
    HoldenSSVSE

    This is throwing down hard against Toyota and Honda. The 2012 Civic offering and MPG ratings are borderline on pathetic. I would be very interested in this as a commuter car.

    On the other hand, this further diminishes the value of the Volt; now a Volt with a diesel ICE – hmmmmmm…

  • avatar
    Detroit-X

    I like diesels, but paying 20% more for the fuel kills my enthusiasm. Paying a 10%-20% premium over the base model car kills my enthusiasm. Buying expensive urea kills my enthusiasm. With a payback time now approaching 100k miles, and a 42mpg ECO Cruze available, what’s the point?

    • 0 avatar
      Cabriolet

      A lot of half truths here. I have owned 3 diesels over the years. My 1984 VW is still on the road with over 800 thousand miles and still running. If you drive a lot they will pay you back in short order. The modern diesels are very clean, very smooth running and quite powerful. I purchased a VW diesel 2 years ago and can’t say enough about the car. First off the torque is the best that about driving this car. Hit the gas and it just goes. I purchased this car for road trips as i retired 2 years ago. On a trip last year to New Orleans i could adverage approx 75-80 MPH and got 42 miles to the gallon. Driving slower 60-65 i would adverage close to 50 MPG. I read about people getting 80-90 MPH but i like the power and moves of this car. When i am home i only have  to fill up the tank every 2 weeks. And did i mention unlike diesels of old this car starts right up at any temp. Also would like to note according to goverment records only .5% of VW diesel owners were troubled with fuel problems cauing them to replace the high pressure fuel pump and related parts. Stopping to fuel up on some of our trips at some of the diesel stops i can understand the need to be careful where you buy fuel. I had to leave a few fuel stops without buying fuel due to the old equipment being used to pump diesel. Must admit though a lot of new stations are now selling diesel from brand new pumps.      

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      Cabriolet:
       
      There would be much less fodder on these boards had VW simply paid up for the repairs instead of screwing the customer for $4000 or more.  Just like those GM customers of old, if you screw those who buy your product, at some point you are screwing yourself.  To blame them for what all unbiased evidence shows to be part failure, and to insult them with a repair bill thats 35% of the value of the car, well you get what you deserve. Instead, if VW paid up, you would have customers crowing how VW stood behind their product even though it was out of warranty.  Instead, you have venom.  Trust me, I tell everybody about the $700 spent on a GM intake gasket.  $4000?  I’d have a huge lemon painted on my car and hand out leaflets.

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    To me, this diesel and electric and green energy government “picking” of the technology solution is also part of the problem.
     
    Here, we have plenty of good options to make a quick, easy, relatively inexpensive jump in fuel economy (diesels), but the government is pushing electric cars.  Fueling stations in place.  Diesel is produced right now.  Cars are available from overseas right now.  No range problems.  Great in town and on long highway drives.  And yet we’re supposed to somehow spend money we don’t have to put 2 million electric cars on the road?
     
    I don’t get it.  I really don’t.

  • avatar
    turbobeetle

    So what are the chances that this engine would end up in the new for 2014 Colorado? Seems like it might be a good match.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Jimal,

    Diesel passenger cars are exempt for now. My ’06 Powerstroke diesel F-550 was exempt when I bought it new and now California is demanding an engine swap. Yes its emissions require zero maintenance but the EGR’s excessive heat likes to kill head gaskets. Diesel passenger cars are free from persecution because of their relative small numbers but could be next on the list of things to do. Do you know what you are buying? The Federal Clean Air Act does. Diesel cars emit the same diesel fuel particulate matters as trucks that kill thousands of Americans a year, just in smaller doses. 

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      It seems odd that California would mandate that fleet vehicles have their engines replaced in such a way. It would seem to me cheaper to sell these trucks out of state and purchase new trucks that meet the standard. I’m too lazy to do the research right now, but did anyone challenge this in court?
       
      Perhaps another example of why California (the government, not the private sector) is bankrupt?

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Buying a banned California diesel truck is risky unless you know for a fact your state will remain exempt indefinitely. Not aware of specific law suits against California but they extended the deadline for some reason.

    • 0 avatar
      Jimal

      I wouldn’t worry about that. I don’t see any state outside of California mandating replacing perfectly good engines that were compliant when they were sold. The other 49 more sane states understand the concepts of grandfathering and planned obsolescence.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Hopefully what happens in California, stays in California but as we’ve seen with anything involving deaths and or health care like second-hand cigarette smoke, .08 DWI BAC., low VOC paints…

  • avatar
    Canucknucklehead

    I will never understand all the hype about diesels. They cost much more to buy and if they ever need any kind of work out of warranty, you’d better have a whopping line of credit available.
     
    I run a fleet of delivery vehicles and over the years, I have been stung a few times by diesels, which are horribly complex and expensive to repair. The old adage is, “under five ton, gas, over diesel,” and it still holds true. Give me a 5.4 Triton any day over a Powerjoke!

    • 0 avatar
      colin42

      Please explain to me why diesels are more complex than say turbocharged Direct injection gasoline engines or hybrids- which the industry is moving towards to meet the next level of fuel economy….

    • 0 avatar
      jaje

      The Ford Powerstroke diesel has been a bad engine for a long time.  Want a really good diesel pickup truck engine – get a Cummins (Dodge) or Duramax (Isuzu / GM).
       
      A diesel is still much less complex a design b/c it eliminates the need for an electronic ignition system and combustion is controlled mechanically by the reciprocating engine.  Today’s modern GDI engines actually use a method similar to the common rail direct injection system and frequently use turbo’s.  Diesel fuel has more energy density than gasoline causing more output per measured volume.  It is the same problem e85 has versus gasoline as e85 has 33% less energy density per volume.

      You want to make a gas engine get similar mileage as a diesel engine – you need to make significant changes to the car or add a supplementary drive system such as a two mode hybrid or parallel system.

    • 0 avatar
      Sam P

      ” I have been stung a few times by diesels, which are horribly complex and expensive to repair.”
       
      Which diesels? Most fleet pickups and vans I see around here are full sized Fords or Chevy/GMC with their respective diesel V8s.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    Yeah, keep on bashing diesels.
    The Europeans must be insane to buy those huge numbers of “good for nothing” dieselcars LOL


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States