Anyone else in line for a 2019 Diesel XLT Connect Wagon?

[Mike Chell]

12 minutes ago, DonShockley said:

... I've noticed they now have some additive that's needed in addition to fuel, I'm assuming for emissions reasons.

? Just pee in the reservoir.  Urea is injected to catalyze NOx into nitrogen and water.  Diesels will always be more powerful than gas engines, but the trade off is they will never be as EPA compliant.  They're also noisier, since they run on the "knocking and pinging" we hate in four strokes.

 

Stick with gas, in my opinion.

[Beta Don]

A diesel is a big winner in low end torque, so if you're buying a tow vehicle, getting a diesel makes good sense.  If you run the freeways putting on 50K per year, a diesel can outlive a gas engine by 2X or 3X assuming the vehicle built around it lasts as long as the engine . . . . but modern gas engines are starting to live as long as the vehicle they came in too.  A diesel gets better mileage, but it pollutes more and the fuel costs a bit more.  Almost all new diesels now have a urea tank which you have to keep up with, which can get expensive enough to almost offset any fuel cost advantages.  For me, if I drove it a LOT and/or if I was buying it primarily to tow a heavy load, I would look to a diesel, otherwise the modern gas engine would get my vote.  In actuality, I would rather have an electric vehicle than either one . . . . and I do own three  ?

 

Don

 

[Beta Don]

$30K for a new diesel TC  -  I paid exactly half that for my 2014 with 12,000 miles on it two years ago.  For me, the difference in cost would never work out in my favor, unless I kept the diesel for about 30 years  -  Problem is, I won't last that long  ?

 

Don

[DonShockley]

Thanks for the info Mike & Don. Doesn't seem like diesel would have net benefits for my driving needs. Although I haven't done any towing with my current TC, I still intend to add the tow package to my next TC options since I would rather have it and not use it as opposed to needing it and not having it. 

[Fifty150]

7 hours ago, Beta Don said:

A diesel gets better mileage, but it pollutes more and the fuel costs a bit more.  

 

Bio-fuel changes that.  Pollution is less of a factor.  Cost per mile will be variable depending upon market rates.  Subsidized biodiesel can cost less per gallon.  

 

My own experience with biodiesel is that there's no black smoke coming out the tailpipe.

[DonShockley]

13 minutes ago, Fifty150 said:

...  Subsidized biodiesel can cost less per gallon. ...

Subsidized anything doesn't lower the actual cost, it just shifts the burden of paying the costs to somebody else. Personally, I suspect subsidies actually increase overall cost since the people financing the subsidies, usually taxpaysers, aren't part of the decision making on if what you are getting is worth the cost. And the person making the purchase decision is only paying part of the burden so is willing to pay more than what it would really be worth if the buyer was paying all the cost.

[Mike Chell]

Bio-diesel is a placebo.  As with ethanol, the cost to produce it is prohibitive ... but that's hidden from us by the government's subsidies.  Also, it's less "energetic" than petroleum diesel, so takes more to cover the same distance. 

The black smoke of petroleum diesel is straight carbon, and yes, there's less of that from bio-diesel.  But straight carbon soot isn't an atmospheric pollutant.  It settles to the ground rather quickly.

 

As with ethanol in gasoline, bio-diesel is not good for the environment.

[G B L]

I am not entering the fuel debate.  On the Towing and diesel debate I will say this .  The  current Medium and light duty diesels do not seem to have the reliability and longevity that the Class 7-8 truck engines have.  The advertised hp of the transit connect Diesel is 120Hp.  The current  2.5 liter  engine in my TC  has 169 hp. I have done lots of towing . The higher Torque will not make up  the 49 less Hp .     I will drive a diesel when I find one as I am very interested to see how it drives.

[Fifty150]

4 hours ago, DonShockley said:

Subsidized anything doesn't lower the actual cost, it just shifts the burden of paying the costs to somebody else. Personally, I suspect subsidies actually increase overall cost since the people financing the subsidies, usually taxpaysers, aren't part of the decision making on if what you are getting is worth the cost. And the person making the purchase decision is only paying part of the burden so is willing to pay more than what it would really be worth if the buyer was paying all the cost.

 

 

To a certain extent, most of the people in the U.S.A. are consuming some sort of food sourced from a farmer who receives a subsidy.  At the grocery store, chicken is @ $0.69 per lb, and eggs are about $0.20 - $0.25 each, retail.  That is a subsidized price.  What is the real cost of raising chickens & eggs, plus the processing and logistics?  It cost more than the $2.50 I paid for the chicken; just to put that chicken on a truck and drive it from the ranch, to the processing facility, to the wholesaler, to the distributor, to my grocery store.  

 

But farm subsidies are complex, and a tool used by the federal government to control the pricing and availability of the world food supply.  I completely disregard the fact that Foster Farms, Zacky Farms, Tyson Chicken, are all sold in other countries, and at the same price point.  I don't want to know how, or why, U.S. chicken is $0.69 per pound in a third world country.  None of my business that U.S. chicken & eggs are saturating the market, driving local ranchers out of business, and leveraging those nations' economies.  

 

Not being an economist, or even socially conscious for that matter, I just like eating chicken.  It's cultural.  My people eat a lot of chicken.  I never allow my mind to wonder as to why there are so many countries that suddenly experienced bird flu, which decimated their poultry production, and then suddenly those markets' voids are filled by U.S. chicken.  No conspiracy theory will fit.  

 

I won't lose any sleep at all, if I save a nickel at the pump, and someone in China is starving because they don't get to eat the soybean or corn that is going into my gas tank.  I am a typical self absorbed, selfish, fat, ignorant American, who pollutes the air way too much with my pickup truck.  My idea of being socially conscious is to give an extra dollar to the girl on the pole who is working her way through college.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Fifty150
typo

[mrtn]

Now that I know that LPG is not as cost effective as the ideal case they are selling it on, the only good side left is that it's cleaner and it's a 100% byproduct of gasoline production, not a separate effort and pollutant on its own.

 

Today's diesel engines with paper thin cylinder walls (to fit in the absurd emission standards made up in offices by people never even seen an engine up close) will never last as long as these semi-frequent reports of some eighties Volvos hitting million miles on original engines.

 

[OLDSCHOOLFOOL]

23 hours ago, Mike Chell said:

Okay ... maybe "a bicycle" was an exaggeration.  But I will not pay that much for transportation.  I'll buy a use vehicle first.  I can keep a vehicle running, even rebuild an engine a few times and still not have $30,000.00 in a used vehicle.

My current T.C. (paid $22,000.00 out the door) should be good to go for at least 10 years.  I doubt I'll be around long enough to bother buying another vehicle.

 

I was just messing with you a little, I agree with you. The only reason I bought a new van was my wife said it had to be new if we were going to buy ANY van. I lost the argument. We are going to relocate soon to NC and when we do I intend to make a lot of use of a bicycle. But I don't see the need to "dress up" in spandex shorts and geek helment to do it.

 

[Mike Chell]

Just messin' back, OldSchool.

As to spandex and a helmet ... well, there's only two reason people look at an old guy on a bicycle.

1)  They're laughing at the old fart on a bike, or

2)  They're laughing at the clothes that old fart is wearing.

 

I'm all for wearing spandex ... so I know they're laughing at the clothes !!!

[G B L]

mrtn  does the propane do better than gas for cost even if it won"t match the diesel cost?  The other up side for you is the propane should keep the Intake valve carbon issue better.

[PhotoAl]

I’ve driven diesel cars in Europe and had no problem.  Not particularly fast but got great mileage.  Interestingly they seemed to be somewhat easier to stall and the stall was more abrupt.  Low speed torque was abundant and with front wheel drive it was also easy to get some wheel spin when starting.  According to my son a gallon of diesel fuel has more energy than gasoline and coupled with the increased efficiency of a diesel design they have better fuel mileage.

 

as for efficiency I often wonder what kind of mileage the big 4 wheel drive pickups are getting at 90 mph which seems to be a popular speed around here.  

 

Mike, I’m off on my bicycle ride with helmet T-shirt and mountain bike shorts.  Most “real” cyclists don’t greet me as they are too cool in their spandex.

[mrtn]

LPG is about the same as diesel, running cost wise.

[G B L]

Sounds like the Propane is a winner for you where you are considering the Gasoline cost.  Have you had any other issues other than the tank corrosion issue .  It will be good  when we can test the Diesel and have a real world test .  You will have to be the 1.6 turbo Gas and propane control and I will have to be 2.5 Gas control!

The energy difference between Gas and Diesel is about  25%  which  will translate to the 30.2 Mpg the 2019 diesel claims and the 25.5 I am averaging.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by G B L

[mrtn]

The corroded part was replaced and sealed properly so no other issues so far.

[Fifty150]

Most of us, as end users, think in terms of miles per gallon.  Very few people do the math to factor in price, and think about cost per mile.  When the Prius first entered the USA market,  there were cost comparisons which also factored in the price of the car.  That was a game changer.  If you compared a $15,000 Toyota Yaris, to a $30,000 Toyota Prius, can you save enough in cost per mile to pay double the money to buy the Prius?  Sure, that wasn't a fair comparison, as they were different cars.  But with a Transit Connect,  which a lot of people are buying for about $20,000, is it economically feasible to pay $$$XXX for an electric, LPG, CNG, diesel, or whatever else they can come up with?  Most conversions , or in the case of a diesel - a different engine, can add $5,000 to the price of the vehicle.  Does that conversion pay for itself, and save money in the long run? 

 

I probably would have bought a Flex Fuel vehicle, but Transit Connect flex fuel was not available.  7 E-85 pumps are available within a 100 mile radius of my house.  Imagine driving up to 50 miles, to fuel up with E-85.

 

The Obama Administration set the goal of installing 10,000 blender pumps nationwide until 2015, and to support this target the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a rule in May 2011 to include flexible fuel pumps in the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This ruling will provide financial assistance to fuel station owners to install E85 and blender pumps.  A major restriction hampering sales of E85 flex vehicles, or fueling with E85, is the limited infrastructure available to sell E85 to the public with only 2% of the motor fuel stations offering E85 by March 2014. A 2014 analysis by the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) found that oil companies prevent or discourage affiliated retailers from selling E85 through rigid franchise and branding agreements, restrictive supply contracts, and other tactics. The report showed independent retailers are five times more likely to offer E85 than retailers carrying an oil company brand.  As of November 2015, there were only 3,218 fueling stations selling E85 to the public in the entire U.S.  

[Mike Chell]

E-85 fuel ... and the government deception grows larger.

E-85 produces about half the energy that straight gasoline does.  So, takes almost twice as much E-85 to cover the same distance as gasoline.

 

When you get to your destination, you will, indeed have produced less emissions ... but at a higher price.  Going green is expensive.

 

Oh, yeah ... and growing the crop to produce ethanol requires the same space as growing food crops.  To keep up with the demand, food will become a secondary crop and the cost to eat will explode.

[MLB]

13 minutes ago, Mike Chell said:

E-85 fuel ... and the government deception grows larger.

E-85 produces about half the energy that straight gasoline does.  So, takes almost twice as much E-85 to cover the same distance as gasoline.

 

When you get to your destination, you will, indeed have produced less emissions ... but at a higher price.  Going green is expensive.

 

Oh, yeah ... and growing the crop to produce ethanol requires the same space as growing food crops.  To keep up with the demand, food will become a secondary crop and the cost to eat will explode.

BS - It's about a 20% hit on mpg's for equivalent cost reduction.   It is stupid to make it from corn, that's for sure. 

[Fifty150]

I agree with you Mike.  E-85 is more harmful to the environment than what is not coming out of the tailpipe.  The politics behind in environmental protection is complicated.  But at the end of the day, everything goes back to the money trail.  Who has the most to gain, who has the most to lose, and who has the money to buy off the politicians for legislation to protect their profits.  Every industry is for profit.  Look at how pharmaceutical companies would rather pay fines, than comply with regulations.  

[Mike Chell]

10 hours ago, Mike Chell said:

E-85 produces about half the energy that straight gasoline does.  So, takes almost twice as much E-85 to cover the same distance as gasoline.

 

 

9 hours ago, MLB said:

BS - It's about a 20% hit on mpg's for equivalent cost reduction.   It is stupid to make it from corn, that's for sure. 

 

The "pro ethanol" sites online state that E-10 is only 5% reduction and E-85 is only 20% ... but no one outside the pro sites can get numbers that good.

In most comparisons ... E-10 is about a 20% reduction in distance from non-ethanol gas.  E-85 is close to 50% reduction.

If a tank full of non-ethanol goes 500 miles ...

E-10 will get you 400 miles and require 25% more fuel to get you the same distance ... you're still making more emissions by the time you reach your destination.

E-85 will take you between 250 and 300 miles and requires almost twice as much fuel.  BUT E-85 IS a much cleaner burning fuel and you will produce less emissions.

I go through this information with almost every class (one week classes with 12 people or so).  In almost every class, there's at least one person who drives a flex fuel and has experienced similar results.

[Fifty150]

11 hours ago, Mike Chell said:

 

 

The "pro ethanol" sites online state that E-10 is only 5% reduction and E-85 is only 20% ... but no one outside the pro sites can get numbers that good.

In most comparisons ... E-10 is about a 20% reduction in distance from non-ethanol gas.  E-85 is close to 50% reduction.

If a tank full of non-ethanol goes 500 miles ...

E-10 will get you 400 miles and require 25% more fuel to get you the same distance ... you're still making more emissions by the time you reach your destination.

E-85 will take you between 250 and 300 miles and requires almost twice as much fuel.  BUT E-85 IS a much cleaner burning fuel and you will produce less emissions.

I go through this information with almost every class (one week classes with 12 people or so).  In almost every class, there's at least one person who drives a flex fuel and has experienced similar results.

 

 

A few other factors.  The make & model of the vehicle could influence the mpg.  Perhaps the weight, or load.  Driving style will also factor in.  

 

In the Econoline, I get about 16 with 87 octane, and about 12 with E-85.  But that's not really the full picture.  California fuel is E-10.  The Econoline may get 17 or 18 MPG with the right fuel.  So a drop of 18 MPG to 12 MPG is about 33%.  

 

It's all subjective.  I've never gotten the MPG estimate from any car, unless I do only freeway driving, for hours.  As I have mentioned in prior threads, my Transit Connect is getting about 16 MPG, with California E-10, and all stop'n'go driving.  With all of the traffic around here, I'm going about 7 miles across town, and it takes an hour.  At 7 miles an hour, with lots of idle time, the math is not in my favor.

[G B L]

On 8/4/2018 at 4:55 PM, mrtn said:

The corroded part was replaced and sealed properly so no other issues so far.

That is good to here.

Here is a fuel heat comparison chart for all the fuels. The fuel mileage will follow the chart pretty closely .

I

32 minutes ago, Fifty150 said:

At 7 miles an hour, with lots of idle time, the math is not in my favor.

  I hope you have a good radio and the AC is in good shape for your trip!

fuel_comparison_chart.pdf

[Fifty150]

1 hour ago, G B L said:

 

  I hope you have a good radio and the AC is in good shape for your trip!

 

 

AM/FM radio.  Base model, XL trim level.  AM radio has News/Talk Radio stations that give me traffic updates every few minutes if I learn to flip the stations properly.  I don't know why I bother.  I don't know why the radio stations bother.  All that I have to do is play music, and still know that traffic is bad.  All that the radio station has to say is, "play music, traffic is bad, and no matter how much you listen to News/Talk Radio, the traffic will be bad without change."