Originally Posted by mswlogo
The V6 is the most advanced engine, IMHO.
The V6 cost more in Europe. EcoDiesel isn't more $$$ because it's more complex and better engineered, it's because they can get the $$$ in the USA. My guess is, they are about equal.
You babbled on about it's not MPG, yet you continue to repeat that same mistake saying it's better MPG than the V6. MPG is an economic metric. You have to use cents per mile in order to fairly compare them and they are pretty damn close. Ignoring the $4500.00 up front surcharge. Marketing folks know customers will only look at MPG because they are to lazy to do the math.
Now if you want to compare MPG with the V8 while getting some of the same performance features, then fine.
I agree, you're right; the diesel isn't better engineered or more complex than a gas engine like I said, but the diesel's fundamentals of operation is superior as I said, even though it is actually simpler in operation. (i.e., a compression ignition engine compresses air in the absence of fuel which has benefits impossible for gasoline engines to have. In a gasoline engine, the need to avoid spontaneous ignition (either pre-ignition or detonation) limits the compression ratio, while the need to ignite and burn the compressed air/fuel mixture requires that the ratio of fuel to air remain within fairly narrow limits. And as far as efficiency, I think everyone knows diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline) So while it may not be more complex, I'd say its operation is more evolved; or at least superior.
But aside from the above tangent, if you think I just babbled on about the MPG, it only shows I did a poor job of getting my point across which is, in part, the burden seems to get placed on the diesel engine option whereas the v8 is accepted as an upgrade even though it is less efficient. Thus my point in making that the diesel option is not only more efficient than the other option the v8, but also even more efficient than the v6 as well. You seem to imply I attribute the diesel's better MPG than the v6 as sole justification for the diesel; it is not and I did not intend to imply so.
The CRD is an engine upgrade for performance, just as is the v8. (I'm not suggesting the performance is closely comparable; however they are both clearly upgrades over the v6 and that is all that matters if someone is going to pay for an upgrade over the stock engine). If someone is going to pay for a performance upgrade, doesn't it make sense to not criticize the diesel as an option when the other engine upgrade happens to be less efficient? And if someone wants to be critical of the merits or justification for the diesel engine, I'll have to at least point out that it happens to get better MPG than the other option, and ironically even better than the stock v6 in the process. So while I point the better mpg than v6, doesn't mean it solely justifies it while ignoring the other attributes and reasons for a diesel.
I like both the v6 and v8, but it appears people get a pass from others when they pay for the extra performance of a v8, which costs more to obtain and operate than a v6. But it seems if you are willing to pay more for a diesel engine option, it is somehow different. If v6 people want to constantly analyze how many miles it will take to pay for the CRD, then they should also point out how much more expensive the v8 costs compared to the v6 to operate with every additional mile driven. Then I'd say well at least the diesel engine gets better mileage than v8 or stock engine. If someone pays extra for a diesel to get the extra performance they want, all of a sudden everything relates only to how many miles it will cost to pay back for the diesel upgrade. What about the fact someone is paying for what they want in the same sense as a v8 option is? All that does is to deny the fact the diesel is another higher cost upgrade than the v6, in the same exact way the v8 is. And again, if anyone is going to ignore that, I'll at least say the diesel is the most efficient of them all.
If the diesel got the same exact mileage as the v8 option, nobody would say anything. But because the diesel option gets very good mileage, all of a sudden people hold it to some payback standard as if that was the reason for the engine being offered as an option in the first place. People can't help themselves from looking at it that way and I can live with that so long as they realize it is partially unfair because the other engine option is less efficient and, but not for the diesel's existence, the v8 option is perfectly accepted despite its higher operating costs over the v6. Because the diesel costs more, one can't knock the diesel (pun intended) if its payback numbers aren't what one thinks they should be because that's not the sole reason for one, nor, I believe, the marketing pitch.
If I am going to pay for an engine upgrade, the primary reason not being MPG of it, I'll be quite happy if it happens to get better MPG than the other option and even moreso if better than the stock engine. And anytime someone wants to hold the diesel's merits erroneously to some never intended payback standard, I'll remind them that the others that paid more for a bigger gasoline engine that get worse mileage than my diesel engine upgrade.
I wonder if the diesel option will ever be $0. Actually I guess its sales success will determine if its even an option next year..I believe it costs more to manufacture a turbo-diesel than a normally aspirated gasoline engine, but I'm no expert. But if the diesel option was ever zero, or at least close to the v8, it makes me wonder if the v8 option would sell well.
The cost of the diesel option as you said $4500 is MSRP. Many, many, people got below invoice so the upgrade cost to them is more accurately perhaps $3400-$4000. And that is only perhaps ~$2000 more than a v8.