# Will Auto Makers Ever Deliver the Ideal Ski Vehicle?



## riverc0il (Aug 10, 2011)

"Ideal" is different things to different people. But for skiers, we know some facts that should generally translate into ideals. Skiers tend to drive long distances in the winter and often through the snow. Skiers tend to have varying amounts of gear depending upon number of people and quiver size but all skiers have minimum gear hauling needs. Due to longer travel, higher MPG is preferred but often MPG is sacrificed for space considerations due to family and gear needs. I think Hatch/Wagon style is more functional but not necessarily an ideal for all people, so we can disregard that item.

So three different sized vehicles would be needed: small and sporty for solo or couple with minimal gear, moderate sized for a family of four, and mega gear hauler for family of more than four or a group with massive amounts of gear. 

Ideal vehicle would have superior fuel efficiency, good gear hauling nature, and all wheel drive. Unfortunately, in today's market, all wheel drive always means sacrificing fuel efficiency. Subaru Impreza 2012 addresses that with a reported 36 MPG highway but it is a small hatch and a family of four would require a gear box and still might barely fit. Perhaps a good ideal option for solo or couple, maybe a threesome. But also low on MPG compared to other cars that get 40 MPG or better. The Elantra has more space and better MPG! Still trade offs all over the place...

So why no diesel AWD or hybrid AWD? VW/Audi already have both diesel and AWD in some cards but never in the same car. Subaru has the AWD but not with hybrid or diesel. A few other manufacturers have both hybrid and AWD technologies but don't combine them. Is there a technological problem with combining high MPG tech with AWD? Or is it a demand issue? Will the tech required push prices too high? Why do auto makers see the need for AWD, hybrid, and diesel separately but don't combine them?

_Cavet: I firmly believe that 4 snow tires is all any skier every truly needs. But it is hard to argue that 4 snows and AWD is the pinnacle of winter driving. But hardly an ideal when suffering at the pump. I don't see any AWD option right now being worth the long term financial fuel penalty._


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 10, 2011)

By looking at the parking lots at most resorts, it would seem most 'skiers' care minimally about fuel efficiency.  Highest percentage of SUVs you tend to see anywhere.

All I want is an AWD wagon, with MT that gets 35MPG highway, costs around 25K and will go for 200K miles with excellent reliability and low maintenance costs.   That car, does not exist.


----------



## Nick (Aug 10, 2011)

When I was younger,  we always had station wagons 

Sent with Tapatalk


----------



## Puck it (Aug 10, 2011)

Toyota has. It is tge FJ Cruiser. Love it. 100K in three years no problem.  No carpet.  Goes through anything. Had it in 4' of snow and no problem.  Oh, it is great for off roading too.


----------



## andrec10 (Aug 10, 2011)

2011 Subaru Outback comes close!


----------



## Philpug (Aug 10, 2011)

Upcoming Subaru VX...







Now bring it here in a  ****ing DIESEL!!!!!!!!


----------



## drjeff (Aug 10, 2011)

What my wife will probably switch over too fairly soon.  






She's got an almost 5 year old gas Q7 right now with about 130k miles on it.  Been a great meag hauler ski car for my family, essentially just routine maintenance (except of course when she's tried to back out of the garage with the tailgate up and a second time with one of the rear passenger doors still open  )

Been thinking about what her replacement will be, she'd like to go smaller to the Q5, but with 2 growing kids (and thir friends) and a dog we tend not to travel lightly and the carrying capacity of the Q7 has been great for us.  The TDI Diesel option is defintely getting some thought from us.  Time will tell


----------



## Nick (Aug 10, 2011)

So is the ideal car a crossover? 

Sent with Tapatalk


----------



## bvibert (Aug 10, 2011)

Ideal for me would be a AWD, turbo diesel, 6 speed MT, mid-sized wagon...  a pass-through in the middle of the rear seat would be nice too.  Not a big fan of crossovers.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 10, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Toyota has. It is tge FJ Cruiser. Love it. 100K in three years no problem.  No carpet.  Goes through anything. Had it in 4' of snow and no problem.  Oh, it is great for off roading too.





andrec10 said:


> 2011 Subaru Outback comes close!


Horrible MPG on both counts!

Ideal includes high MPG. You take a massive MPG hit for what most people would consider a good skier vehicle based on current available options.


----------



## snoseek (Aug 10, 2011)

I think Subies are pretty dialed in. I'm banking my little Tacoma with fours snows is gonna get it done. Just throw the shit in the back and go!


----------



## snoseek (Aug 10, 2011)

How about the Honda Element? The milage is decent-not quite ideal-but good. The cargo room is awesome though!


----------



## mondeo (Aug 10, 2011)

STI and Evo work fairly well for the small car segment. Screw the mileage, if you're paying $35k for a car and going skiing every or every other weekend, you're kidding yourself by worrying about the extra $10 per trip. Might as well have a car that's enjoyable to drive in the snow.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 10, 2011)

snoseek said:


> How about the Honda Element? The milage is decent-not quite ideal-but good. The cargo room is awesome though!



An Element is only 25 mpg and it's horribly underpowered even with that dubious fuel economy.


----------



## snoseek (Aug 10, 2011)

Geoff said:


> An Element is only 25 mpg and it's horribly underpowered even with that dubious fuel economy.



My ex had one and we took it over LL and Berthoud pass often. It's not fast but can hold 70 no problem on Georgetown hill.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 10, 2011)

One thing you left out of the list of 'ideal' features is safety.  

I drive a truck (Tundra) because I have to.  I take it skiing when I need to.  But the MPG is terrible (17) and even with 4WD pickups don't handle well in the snow due to light rearends.  My wife drives our ski car.  These days it's a CRV, previously it was Subarus (legacy).  I've put a few pickups in the median during snowstorms.  And I'm always leery of  roll-over in the CRV, although it's actually been great.  But the Subarus....never felt more confident in a car.  With their wide, low stance and killer AWD I always felt 100% safe.  Even passing plows at 75MPH in a blizzard.  I think some of the Audis and Volvos can boast similar stance and handling.  It counts for a lot.


----------



## Edd (Aug 11, 2011)

andrec10 said:


> 2011 Subaru Outback comes close!





riverc0il said:


> Horrible MPG on both counts!
> 
> Ideal includes high MPG. You take a massive MPG hit for what most people would consider a good skier vehicle based on current available options.



The 11 Outback gets 31 mpg with the CVT right?  That's better than horrible.


----------



## andrec10 (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Horrible MPG on both counts!
> 
> Ideal includes high MPG. You take a massive MPG hit for what most people would consider a good skier vehicle based on current available options.



Actually, the Outback gets about 30mpg on the highway, so if you consider that horrible, I dont know what to say!


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 11, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Screw the mileage, if you're paying $35k for a car and going skiing every or every other weekend, you're kidding yourself by worrying about the extra $10 per trip. Might as well have a car that's enjoyable to drive in the snow.


The difference between 25 MPG and 35 MPG over the course of 200k miles at today's gas rates is $10,000. For some people that buy used, they could actually have saved more in gas than the price of their car simply by buying a car that gets at least 35 MPG. 

I doubt the average person can afford a $35k car (I sure can't) but if someone factored in the gas mileage savings of higher MPG, you suddenly could in a long enough time line. Going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG is $20,000 savings at today's gas prices over 200k miles (or $10,000 in 100k miles since some have suggested looking at a 200k mile lifetime is unrealistic). 

You can certainly say screw the mileage. But you have to admit, that is not _*ideal*_. Which was the point of this thread....


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 11, 2011)

Edd said:


> The 11 Outback gets 31 mpg with the CVT right?  That's better than horrible.





andrec10 said:


> Actually, the Outback gets about 30mpg on the highway, so if you consider that horrible, I dont know what to say!


When you factor in non-highway driving, the combined is pretty miserable on a Subie, yes. 30 MPG highway is 10 MPG less than what gas cars are currently capable of so that is 1/3 less. But that is 1/3 on a scale from 0. On a scale of all passenger vehicles, it is really middle of the pack as all but the worst passenger non-performance non-truck vehicles get at least 20 MPG highway. Certain diesels can get 40+ MPG combined and certain hybrids get 40-50+ combined. Pretty much all compact cars by next year will be at 38-40 MPG excepting the Impreza. Yes, 30 MPG highway and low 20s combined is horrible from my perspective. See my previous post on the difference between 25 MPG combined vs 35 MPG combined and the associated costs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The difference between 25 MPG and 35 MPG over the course of 200k miles at today's gas rates is $10,000. For some people that buy used, they could actually have saved more in gas than the price of their car simply by buying a car that gets at least 35 MPG.
> 
> I doubt the average person can afford a $35k car (I sure can't) but if someone factored in the gas mileage savings of higher MPG, you suddenly could in a long enough time line. Going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG is $20,000 savings at today's gas prices over 200k miles (or $10,000 in 100k miles since some have suggested looking at a 200k mile lifetime is unrealistic).
> 
> You can certainly say screw the mileage. But you have to admit, that is not _*ideal*_. Which was the point of this thread....



all true and definitely the way that I look at things in my income bracket.

However, skiing is a luxury activity.  Most people who ski every weekend, traveling long distances to do so, also pony up the cash for hotels every weekend, seasonal rental or own a second home.  10-20K in cost savings over the 5- 8 years they own a car doesn't make a big enough difference to those people that they're willing to either sacrifice space or certain performance characteristics.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 11, 2011)

mondeo said:


> STI and Evo work fairly well for the small car segment. Screw the mileage, if you're paying $35k for a car and going skiing every or every other weekend, you're kidding yourself by worrying about the extra $10 per trip. Might as well have a car that's enjoyable to drive in the snow.



qft. Well put. 

I think it's different for everyone. For us, we need something with room because we haul a lot of stuff in the off season. And something that tow. And something with decent ground clearance for mud season. 

Worrying about 5mpg doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you look at the big picture.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> When you factor in non-highway driving, the combined is pretty miserable on a Subie, yes. 30 MPG highway is 10 MPG less than what gas cars are currently capable of so that is 1/3 less. But that is 1/3 on a scale from 0. On a scale of all passenger vehicles, it is really middle of the pack as all but the worst passenger non-performance non-truck vehicles get at least 20 MPG highway. Certain diesels can get 40+ MPG combined and certain hybrids get 40-50+ combined. Pretty much all compact cars by next year will be at 38-40 MPG excepting the Impreza. Yes, 30 MPG highway and low 20s combined is horrible from my perspective. See my previous post on the difference between 25 MPG combined vs 35 MPG combined and the associated costs.



If you do 20,000 miles per year on your car and gas costs $4.00 per gallon, the difference between 25 MPG combined and 35 MPG combined is $914 per year.

If the car is fairly new, 20,000 miles on a $25,000 car is $3,000 to $4,000 in depreciation.    When you factor in all your other ownership costs like sales & property tax, registration, inspection, insurance, tires & brakes, oil changes....   that $914 per year is lost in the noise.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Horrible MPG on both counts!
> 
> Ideal includes high MPG. You take a massive MPG hit for what most people would consider a good skier vehicle based on current available options.



I get about 20 mpg with it.  It works for me. Thus it is the ideal ski vehicle.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> The difference between 25 MPG and 35 MPG over the course of 200k miles at today's gas rates is $10,000. For some people that buy used, they could actually have saved more in gas than the price of their car simply by buying a car that gets at least 35 MPG.
> 
> I doubt the average person can afford a $35k car (I sure can't) but if someone factored in the gas mileage savings of higher MPG, you suddenly could in a long enough time line. Going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG is $20,000 savings at today's gas prices over 200k miles (or $10,000 in 100k miles since some have suggested looking at a 200k mile lifetime is unrealistic).
> 
> You can certainly say screw the mileage. But you have to admit, that is not _*ideal*_. Which was the point of this thread....


You said ideal ski vehicle. Not ideal daily driver designed around ski trip capability. Changes the mileage assumptions.

Which goes back to my point. If you ski enough that ability as a ski vehicle is a prime consideration when purchasing a vehicle, then the additional yearly cost, compared to skiing, is a nit. If you don't ski enough for the cost to be a nit, then you probably shouldn't be looking for an ideal ski vehicle anyways.

Furthermore, what it seems that you're looking for is a capacious vehicle that gets 40mpg with AWD and decent performance for $20K or less. There's a reason the ideal ski vehicle doesn't exist. It can't be done profitably.


----------



## SkiDork (Aug 11, 2011)

To each his own.  My 2011 Suburban _for me_ is the ideal ski vehicle.

The 1 and only negative is of course, the gas mileage.  Other than that is kicks ass.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 11, 2011)

My wife's Cayenne is a great ski vehicle. Decent (for an SUV) mileage, AWD, plenty of space. The only dings are that it's tall, so reaching for the roof rack is guaranteed to plant your belly on the road salt grime, and the mounting points are a little too far back so you can't open the hatch all the way with skis in the racks. Added bonus is it's fun to drive on twisty mountain roads. But, it is a bit pricey.

I thought both of the old Saab 9-3 hatchbacks I had were great. Front wheel drive, high-20's mileage, plenty of gear space, and you could open the back with skis in the rack. And fun to drive on twisty mountain roads. Alas, they don't make them any more.

My car is not an ideal ski vehicle. RWD, small trunk, less than stellar mileage, but it is a LOT of fun to drive on twisty moutnain roads.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

How bad is the Benz driving in snow?  I've never driven a RWD in the snow.  I hear they're terrible, but I'm wondering how much worse a RWD with snow tires is than a FWD with snows.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> How bad is the Benz driving in snow?  I've never driven a RWD in the snow.  I hear they're terrible, but I'm wondering how much worse a RWD with snow tires is than a FWD with snows.



I've actually had no trouble whatsoever with snows on (without is an entirely different matter). I've felt more stable and secure in it than I expected. Only two days that I couldn't drive it to work, I couldn't drive the Cayenne, either (once with 3 feet of snow on the road, once with a super high tide sending icebergs across the causeway off the island). Once you figure out how it behaves, it does just fine. It's actually a tough adjustment going from the RWD to the AWD- the rear end sliding out is one thing, an unexpected 4 wheel drift is something else.

That said, it's certainly more work, and you have to stay on your toes, so for driving back in shitty weather after a day of skiing (yes, I ski...), the choice is pretty simple.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

We all have different use patterns.

I only drive 2 miles to go skiing.   What I care about in a ski car is to be able to get out of my parking spot on a powder day and cope with two feet of unplowed slop in the ski area parking lot.   My skis live in the car all winter so I want a rolling ski locker.   I boot up in my condo so I want an automatic and enough foot space to drive with ski boots.

The rest of the time, I want a nice sub-$30K daily driver that gets good fuel economy and is fun to drive.

I own two cars.   An SUV that is my rolling ski locker and a VW GTI that is my daily driver.

With a receiver hitch and a really small, low profile roof box, I can imagine collapsing down to one car.   An Audi A3 Quattro is the closest to what I'd want but I don't want to be held hostage by an Audi dealership for service (see Dork's "I am an idiot" thread).


----------



## JimG. (Aug 11, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I boot up in my condo so I want an automatic and enough foot space to drive with ski boots.



Now I understand why you are not a fan of manual transmissions.

Can't drive a stick with ski boots on!


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 11, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> I thought both of the old Saab 9-3 hatchbacks I had were great. Front wheel drive, high-20's mileage, plenty of gear space, and you could open the back with skis in the rack. And fun to drive on twisty mountain roads. Alas, they don't make them any more.



i concur. had a 2000 93 se, with snow tires that thing was incredible in the snow.  my only knock would be the relevantly low ground clearance so if there was dump of snow and the roads weren't plowed it could be an issue.

honda CRV was pretty good mix of features and functionality. decent mileage, pretty good AWD, good clearance and plenty of space for 4 + gear.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

JimG. said:


> Now I understand why you are not a fan of manual transmissions.
> 
> Can't drive a stick with ski boots on!



I had always owned manual transmission cars.   My first two SUVs were manuals.   In 1998, I couldn't buy what I wanted with a manual transmission so I got my first automatic.  That's when I discovered I could drive it wearing ski boots.    

That SUV also had the Ford on-the-door combination lock.   A near-essential feature for me now is to not need a car key when I'm out skiing.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> It's actually a tough adjustment going from the RWD to the AWD- the rear end sliding out is one thing, an unexpected 4 wheel drift is something else.


Never lift, apply a dab of oppo, rinse repeat.

Although, my four wheel drifts aren't unexpected. They're just how I get around corners in the snow.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 11, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Never lift, apply a dab of oppo, rinse repeat.
> 
> Although, my four wheel drifts aren't unexpected. They're just how I get around corners in the snow.



Yeah- it's just remembering that the car will do that that's tough. 
Does make for fun driving, though (as long as there's not someone ahead of you doing an unintentional 720 with a 4-fender telephone pole bump.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

Geoff said:


> That SUV also had the Ford on-the-door combination lock.   A near-essential feature for me now is to not need a car key when I'm out skiing.



I wish every car on the market had this feature. I had an Explorer for many years and loved being able to lock my keys and wallet in the car, especially when going to the beach.  

I have no idea why so few models offer it.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 11, 2011)

Geoff said:


> If you do 20,000 miles per year on your car and gas costs $4.00 per gallon, the difference between 25 MPG combined and 35 MPG combined is $914 per year.
> 
> If the car is fairly new, 20,000 miles on a $25,000 car is $3,000 to $4,000 in depreciation.    When you factor in all your other ownership costs like sales & property tax, registration, inspection, insurance, tires & brakes, oil changes....   that $914 per year is lost in the noise.



$914 per year isn't lost in the noise to me.  $914 could by my season pass + a bunch of days at other mountains.  So one way to look at it is: "buy a fuel efficient car...ski free all season".   And that's every year that you own it, so it's more like: "Buy a fuel efficient car...ski free for 10 years."


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Toyota has. It is tge FJ Cruiser. Love it. 100K in three years no problem.  No carpet.  Goes through anything. Had it in 4' of snow and no problem.  Oh, it is great for off roading too.



what do you think you'll eventually replace it with now that the FJ was discontinued?

Personally, I think they made a mistake with the styling.  They should've gone with a look similar to the old FJ.  

I think the FJ's target market is the same as the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited.  Jeep stuck with the 'classic' design, where as FJ went more bold.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 11, 2011)

Diesels will solve the mileage issue.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> what do you think you'll eventually replace it with now that the FJ was discontinued?
> 
> Personally, I think they made a mistake with the styling. They should've gone with a look similar to the old FJ.
> 
> I think the FJ's target market is the same as the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. Jeep stuck with the 'classic' design, where as FJ went more bold.


 
They are making them through 2012. I may get a new one this year. However, I can not seem to break mine. Hoping for this color option.







Or will go with a four door Jeep Wrangler


----------



## gmcunni (Aug 11, 2011)

quick math says i drove about 5100 miles last season for skiing.  between driving a big GMC acadia + honda CRV and a old toyota camry i'll say 22 MPG as an optimistic  average

231 gallons of gas @ 4.00? (i don't recall pricing from last winter) = $924

if i got 30MPG it would have been $680


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> They are making them through 2012. I may get a new one this year. However, I can not seem to break mine. Hoping for this color option.



moving to Dorchester?


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 11, 2011)

Philpug said:


> Diesels will solve the mileage issue.



Kinda, but not really.  Solves some of the consumption problem.  But doesn't solve much of the cost problem.  This may have been done in another thread, but here goes.  Comparing VW Jetta SportWagen Diesel vs gas.  Using VW's numbers, this week's average fuel costs, and 20,000miles/year.  Some math:

Diesel:  20,000miles / 42MPG * $4.013gal = $1,911
Gas:     20,000miles / 33MPG * $3.780gal = $2,291

Annual fuel cost savings of $380.

VW diesel cost $5K more than the gas version.  $5,000/$380 = 13 years to break even.


----------



## SkiDork (Aug 11, 2011)

another problem with deisel is finding stations that carry it


----------



## Glenn (Aug 11, 2011)

But it is still easier to find than a spare 220v line.  :lol:


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I wish every car on the market had this feature. I had an Explorer for many years and loved being able to lock my keys and wallet in the car, especially when going to the beach.
> 
> I have no idea why so few models offer it.



I would imagine that at one point, Ford held a patent on it.   It must have expired by now.   I wish all cars had the feature.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I would imagine that at one point, Ford held a patent on it.   It must have expired by now.   I wish all cars had the feature.



I know back the 80s my neighbors had a Nissan Maxima with the keypad.  It's the only other car brand I've ever seen it on.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I know back the 80s my neighbors had a Nissan Maxima with the keypad.  It's the only other car brand I've ever seen it on.



They make aftermarket ones but I don't know of anyone I would trust to install it.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Horrible MPG on both counts!
> 
> Ideal includes high MPG. You take a massive MPG hit for what most people would consider a good skier vehicle based on current available options.





YOUR IDEAL. 

My ideal is 10+ ground clearance, a big powerful motor (at least a v6) and the capability to make it to far distant off road trailheads where I can skin to the goods. Anything but a truck, or serious SUV is not going to cut it for me. Ill gladly take the MPG hit (which is really peanuts considering my Nissan Frontier gets 22-23 highway with 32's and a 2" suspension lift.)


----------



## Philpug (Aug 11, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Kinda, but not really.  Solves some of the consumption problem.  But doesn't solve much of the cost problem.  This may have been done in another thread, but here goes.  Comparing VW Jetta SportWagen Diesel vs gas.  Using VW's numbers, this week's average fuel costs, and 20,000miles/year.  Some math:
> 
> Diesel:  20,000miles / 42MPG * $4.013gal = $1,911
> Gas:     20,000miles / 33MPG * $3.780gal = $2,291
> ...


Not really 5K difference. The TDI comes with more standard equipment than the base JSW. Look at resale value, the TDI is far superior than the gas model. Other benefit is performance, the TDI has more usable power . As far as mileage, diesel owners regularly get the estimated economy, the gas owners not so much. Also diesels get tax breaks (mine was $1300).


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

Philpug said:


> Not really 5K difference. The TDI comes with more standard equipment than the base JSW. Look at resale value, the TDI is far superior than the gas model. Other benefit is performance, the TDI has more usable power . As far as mileage, diesel owners regularly get the estimated economy, the gas owners not so much. Also diesels get tax breaks (mine was $1300).



Resale only compensates for the added maintenance costs. Diesel motors are built tougher to handle the higher compression, that means when parts break, they are more expensive. Not to mention the price gouging that will occur if you take that German automobile to the shop. 

That being said, if you do the work yourself, you will still realize the couple grand savings, but thats only if you drive 200k miles in the car under your ownership. 

In the other thread I brought this point up as well, who here actually drives a car to 200k? Im not asking if theyve owned a car with 200k miles on it, Im sure most of us have come close to that, but how many of us actually put 200k miles on the same vehicle. The only one thats believable is Deadhead, as he drives everywhere as part of his job. 

200K miles is an unrealistic number to try and strive for to justify a diesel. The probability of you owning that vehicle for 13 years is slim to none. Just look at the cars you've owned thread, unless most folks here are driving 30-50k miles a year, that aint happening.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Resale only compensates for the added maintenance costs. Diesel motors are built tougher to handle the higher compression, that means when parts break, they are more expensive. Not to mention the price gouging that will occur if you take that German automobile to the shop.
> 
> That being said, if you do the work yourself, you will still realize the couple grand savings, but thats only if you drive 200k miles in the car under your ownership.
> 
> ...


And you continue to not take into account the fact that since they're built heavier, they tend to last longer. In general, at least with trucks where there's more data, diesels tend to be lower long term costs because they just don't break.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

mondeo said:


> And you continue to not take into account the fact that since they're built heavier, they tend to last longer. In general, at least with trucks where there's more data, diesels tend to be lower long term costs because they just don't break.



Wrong. The HD and truck world has realized that while the trucks may indeed last longer (which is debatable mind you, any car or vehicle will last a long time when maintained well), but it still takes 200k plus miles to see that difference. Again, are you driving the same vehicle that long, probably not.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Wrong. The HD and truck world has realized that while the trucks may indeed last longer (which is debatable mind you, any car or vehicle will last a long time when maintained well), but it still takes 200k plus miles to see that difference. Again, are you driving the same vehicle that long, probably not.



Please explain the expensive failure points of a VW CBEA 2.0L TDI?

The "expensive maintanence" is fuel filter and air filter every 20K miles.


----------



## hammer (Aug 11, 2011)

To answer the OP, no...because there isn't one clear, complete definition of what an ideal ski car is...


----------



## Nick (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I know back the 80s my neighbors had a Nissan Maxima with the keypad.  It's the only other car brand I've ever seen it on.



Yeah my SIL's ford does that today. 

 i like the nissan's where you don't even have to put a key in the ignition. I used to think my Saab's FOB was so cool before haha.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 11, 2011)

Well, I am going to give up debating my perspective on this issue. This thread clearly proves that the auto industry already has made the ideal ski vehicle for better than 90% of the skiing population that doesn't value an extra $1000 per year in their pocket due to better mileage. But I still don't understand how you guys don't think an AWD cargo hauler that gets 35+ combined MPG is not more ideal than what you guys already have. You guys have proven that the auto industry clearly would be wasting their time and money improving fuel efficiency in the AWD market. I'm stunned.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Well, I am going to give up debating my perspective on this issue. This thread clearly proves that the auto industry already has made the ideal ski vehicle for better than 90% of the skiing population that doesn't value an extra $1000 per year in their pocket due to better mileage. But I still don't understand how you guys don't think an AWD cargo hauler that gets 35+ combined MPG is not more ideal than what you guys already have. You guys have proven that the auto industry clearly would be wasting their time and money improving fuel efficiency in the AWD market. I'm stunned.



I don''t think I'd want a 35+MPG AWD cargo hauler as my daily driver, is all.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 11, 2011)

gmcunni said:


> 231 gallons of gas @ 4.00? (i don't recall pricing from last winter) = $924
> 
> if i got 30MPG it would have been $680


Don't forget to factor in your non-skiing miles. Probably enough of a difference to equate to a season pass and lodging for the season when you total up the different in yearly mileage. geoff's numbers suggest over $900 for the year, not shabby.



Guys, I'm talking ideals here. No one is saying your current car sucks and you need to defend it.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 11, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> In the other thread I brought this point up as well, who here actually drives a car to 200k? Im not asking if theyve owned a car with 200k miles on it, Im sure most of us have come close to that, but how many of us actually put 200k miles on the same vehicle. The only one thats believable is Deadhead, as he drives everywhere as part of his job.



Really? 

I'm in the same exact industry as DHS and drive everywhere as well. On top of that, I have 3 kids who play premier soccer who need to be driven all over the planet. On top on that, I do most of my skiing on a daytrip basis.

I wish I still had the 04 Outback with 350K on it...I'd take a pic of the odometer to prove to you that mileage figure. 

And I bought that car with 9K on the odometer so yes, 341K of that mileage I actually put on the car myself.

You need to be a bit more careful with your sweeping and dismissive statements.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

Good for you, but you cant honestly think that driving a car 341k is the norm. Id say your in 1% of the driving population. I dont need to be more careful. I think youre being delusional if the average person drives 50k a year like you do. Seriously, you average 48k a year in change? Come on man, the average milage driven by most americans is like 15k a year. With the amount you drive, your spending 5k just in gas per year, before you even touch a car payment or anything in maintenance. The average person in America could not physically afford to drive as much as you do. 

And if you do drive that much, I bet your insurance premiums are higher as well, better take that into account.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Well, I am going to give up debating my perspective on this issue. This thread clearly proves that the auto industry already has made the ideal ski vehicle for better than 90% of the skiing population that doesn't value an extra $1000 per year in their pocket due to better mileage. But I still don't understand how you guys don't think an AWD cargo hauler that gets 35+ combined MPG is not more ideal than what you guys already have. You guys have proven that the auto industry clearly would be wasting their time and money improving fuel efficiency in the AWD market. I'm stunned.



Maybe because your ideals are again, different. 

To me, a ski vehicle needs to be capable before being frugal. Clearly, the majority of America agrees. 

Honestly bud, there are very few vehicles out there that get 35 mpg combined period. Excuse me for careing more about my time in the vehicle, but theres no way Im driving a Fiesta or Jetta diesel off road. This is America, not Europe.

I honestly could care less what my mpg's are, I need to be able to get to places more than I need to save an extra couple bucks a month. Those are my ideals.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

Your favorite mountain and the car you use to get there SUX!!!11!!1


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> And if you do drive that much, I bet your insurance premiums are higher as well, better take that into account.



I don't think miles driven matters much when it comes to car insurance.  It's where you live that matters as most accidents occur close to home.

Our insurance bill for the year is $1200.  That's for full coverage (the highest pay out and lowest deductable money can buy) on an 04 Mazda3 and an 07 Sonata.  


Thank you New Hampshire!!!!  Having perfect driving records also helps


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't think miles driven matters much when it comes to car insurance.  It's where you live that matters as most accidents occur close to home.
> 
> Our insurance bill for the year is $1200.  That's for full coverage (the highest pay out and lowest deductable money can buy) on an 04 Mazda3 and an 07 Sonata.
> 
> ...



Huh, maybe its by provider? I know when I moved a couple miles closer to work just recently, my premium went down 20 bucks a month. I run through Geico, and that was their explanation. I currently pay 87 a month for full coverage and a 1000 deductible. Im also younger. 

I think having two cars that both went for around 20k new helped you out, considering they are now 4 and 8 years old respectively. The replacement value on those cars must be pretty low at this point. 

I think car insurance is a total scam, especially given that in most states its mandated by law. Cant wait to ditch the truck payment and go to liability. The Geico quote for me (26, Wyoming resident, 10k miles driven per year, 1 ticket) was 17 bucks a month. I pretty much crapped my pants, and immediately upped the amount I pay on the truck every month so I can get that rate.


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> your favorite mountain and the car you use to get there sux!!!11!!1



qft.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> I think having two cars that both went for around 20k new helped you out, considering they are now 4 and 8 years old respectively. The replacement value on those cars must be pretty low at this point.
> 
> .



Perhaps a bit.  Who knows.  I bought the Sonata new in October of 06 for 24K.  We bought the Mazda used in September 09 for 12K. We've been paying the same rate since the Mazda purchase. I almost always shop for a new deal every 6 months, but $100 a month for 2 drivers and 2 cars at max coverage is pretty tough to beat. 

Travelers FTW!


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Perhaps a bit.  Who knows.  I bought the Sonata new in October of 06 for 24K.  We bought the Mazda used in September 09 for 12K. We've been paying the same rate since the Mazda purchase. I almost always shop for a new deal every 6 months, but $100 a month for 2 drivers and 2 cars at max coverage is pretty tough to beat.
> 
> Travelers FTW!



I will agree, thats a solid rate for full coverage and a low deductible. Ill have to check them out when my policy runs its course.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Well, I am going to give up debating my perspective on this issue. This thread clearly proves that the auto industry already has made the ideal ski vehicle for better than 90% of the skiing population that doesn't value an extra $1000 per year in their pocket due to better mileage. But I still don't understand how you guys don't think an AWD cargo hauler that gets 35+ combined MPG is not more ideal than what you guys already have. You guys have proven that the auto industry clearly would be wasting their time and money improving fuel efficiency in the AWD market. I'm stunned.



No, I'm with you 100%.  It pisses me off that my wife's CRV only gets about 26MPG.  This car feels like about the lowest-end we can go (size, cost, etc) and still have a reasonable ski vehicle that carries the gear, the dog, and passengers.  Besides that minimal amount of space, the only other option we won't compromise on is AWD.  

If any competitor offered the same space with AWD but 10MPG more....we would literally by it tomorrow.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Well, I am going to give up debating my perspective on this issue. This thread clearly proves that the auto industry already has made the ideal ski vehicle for better than 90% of the skiing population that doesn't value an extra $1000 per year in their pocket due to better mileage. But I still don't understand how you guys don't think an AWD cargo hauler that gets 35+ combined MPG is not more ideal than what you guys already have. You guys have proven that the auto industry clearly would be wasting their time and money improving fuel efficiency in the AWD market. I'm stunned.


Given the alternative of a boring car? Nope. Not worth it.

What you're asking for can't exist with the current technology. That's all there is to it. A 30MPG 7 person vehicle can't happen, a 40 mpg fun car can't happen, etc. By the time you put in the design features required to hit those efficiency targets, you've lost the fuel cost reduction in up front costs. The new Impreza hatch is as close as you're going to get today with AWD, probably the Fusion or Legacy for a slightly larger vehicle, Escape, etc.

The car companies are doing what is reasonable to increase efficiency, but you're overconstraining the problem. 

You're also missing the solution of getting an additional car for a limited use situation. If I had room in my driveway to park another car, I'd seriously consider getting a Fiesta for the ~8K miles/year I do for long, boring drives where the STI just sorta goes to waste.


----------



## JimG. (Aug 11, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Good for you, but you cant honestly think that driving a car 341k is the norm. Id say your in 1% of the driving population. I dont need to be more careful. I think youre being delusional if the average person drives 50k a year like you do. Seriously, you average 48k a year in change? Come on man, the average milage driven by most americans is like 15k a year. With the amount you drive, your spending 5k just in gas per year, before you even touch a car payment or anything in maintenance. The average person in America could not physically afford to drive as much as you do.
> 
> And if you do drive that much, I bet your insurance premiums are higher as well, better take that into account.



I'm not bragging, and I certainly don't think that 350K is the norm. So there goes your assertion that I'm delusional. I actually average over 50K a year and my gas bills would be unaffordable if my present company didn't give me a healthy gas allowance. I keep any loans I have to take out real small so that the car is paid off quickly. My new 2011 Legacy was paid for cash on the spot. And no, I certainly don't think that's the norm either. 

And unless you tell them, my insurance company has no idea how much I drive. My premiums are quite affordable, that is until my 17 year old gets added to the policy. I'm currently paying $1500 a year for both the 11 Legacy and the 05 Outback in NY, through Travelers like DHS. I think Geico is ripping you off.

Look, I don't want to turn this harmless thread into a flame war. I just didn't like the way you simply dismissed that others may drive as much as DHS just because of the industry he works in, that's all. I guess you didn't take into account that anyone who works in route sales drives an inordinate amount.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 11, 2011)

mondeo said:


> What you're asking for can't exist with the current technology.


Why can't a diesel get mated with an AWD? VW/Audi's TDIs get 42 MPG highway and higher real world is often reported. Mate that with an AWD and you can get utility, AWD, and MPG. This also resolves the issue of high MPG vehicles also being fun to drive... it is possible.

Regarding the 200k not being realistic... you are going to drive the same cumulative lifetime mileage regardless of how many cars you drive.... so call it 2 Million liftetime miles if you would prefer.... the fuel savings continue to add up regardless of how many times you change cars as long as you get cars with good MPG. And as gas prices increase, it will get even more noticable.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Why can't a diesel get mated with an AWD? VW/Audi's TDIs get 42 MPG highway and higher real world is often reported. Mate that with an AWD and you can get utility, AWD, and MPG. This also resolves the issue of high MPG vehicles also being fun to drive... it is possible.
> 
> Regarding the 200k not being realistic... you are going to drive the same cumulative lifetime mileage regardless of how many cars you drive.... so call it 2 Million liftetime miles if you would prefer.... the fuel savings continue to add up regardless of how many times you change cars as long as you get cars with good MPG. And as gas prices increase, it will get even more noticable.


Mating it to AWD would probably drop it to 38 instantly, add the fact that you're paying 15% more for diesel, and voila, worse than the Impreza. And the TDI does NOT qualify as a fun car. Jeeze, 0-60 in 8.6s? A Grand Caravan is faster. And more fun to throw around corners, in its own perverse way.

The cars under consideration when I bought mine were the STI, Evo, 350Z, and GTO. The Mustang GT would work its way into consideration today. Maybe the Focus ST, but I'm really hoping they bring a Focus RS or Fiesta RS. I'm not saying there aren't fun cars below this level, but try something with slightly better performance than what the horrid time period between the exit of the AWD Eclipse and Celica and the arrival of the WRX had to offer.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2011)

Mike,

Your hatred for skiing a Fischer Watea 94 in the bumps totally makes sense to me now. :lol:


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Mike,
> 
> Your hatred for skiing a Fischer Watea 94 in the bumps totally makes sense to me now. :lol:


I like going fast and pushing things. Anyone who's skied with me I think can attest to that. I've always been a little confused that there isn't more overlap between skiers and car lovers, because I'm drawn to both for the thrill seeking aspects.

You don't need power to have fun, as the Miata has shown over the couple decades of its existence. My brother had a '89 MR2 that was an absolute blast. But I've never heard of the TDI/Golf described as a particularly flickable car; I'd never think to recommend it as a car for someone looking for something moderately fun but fuel efficient and relatively inexpensive. The stock answers there are the Fiesta and Mazda 3. Regardless, I don't see a 40mpg gas or equivelent diesel with AWD coming for another few years. Maybe 2014-2015MY. And I think it's foolish to expect auto companies to spend tens of millions in development cost to offer cars that will save a very small segment of the world population $100-200 dollars per year.

And the Wateas have grown on me in the bumps, largely because I've started skiing more direct. They don't work so well with the throw it sideways and skid method that I was using before last summer. I actually enjoyed skiing the few bump runs I did at Copper and A-Basin with them.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 11, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I like going fast and pushing things. Anyone who's skied with me I think can attest to that. I've always been a little confused that there isn't more overlap between skiers and car lovers, because I'm drawn to both for the thrill seeking aspects.
> 
> You don't need power to have fun, as the Miata has shown over the couple decades of its existence. My brother had a '89 MR2 that was an absolute blast. But I've never heard of the TDI/Golf described as a particularly flickable car; I'd never think to recommend it as a car for someone looking for something moderately fun but fuel efficient and relatively inexpensive. The stock answers there are the Fiesta and Mazda 3. Regardless, I don't see a 40mpg gas or equivelent diesel with AWD coming for another few years. Maybe 2014-2015MY. And I think it's foolish to expect auto companies to spend tens of millions in development cost to offer cars that will save a very small segment of the world population $100-200 dollars per year.
> 
> And the Wateas have grown on me in the bumps, largely because I've started skiing more direct. They don't work so well with the throw it sideways and skid method that I was using before last summer. I actually enjoyed skiing the few bump runs I did at Copper and A-Basin with them.



I don't understand why you don't just ride a motorcycle.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 11, 2011)

Geoff said:


> I don't understand why you don't just ride a motorcycle.


Probably will in a year or two, but I figure a DH bike comes first. But motorcycles aren't much fun in the rain and snow.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 12, 2011)

mondeo said:


> I like going fast and pushing things. Anyone who's skied with me I think can attest to that. I've always been a little confused that there isn't more overlap between skiers and car lovers, because I'm drawn to both for the thrill seeking aspects.
> .



I'm just a gaper.  Hence why I drive a Sonata.  


In all seriousness, I do agree with you.  If I didn't put 40K miles per year on a car and drew a larger paycheck, I'd probably drive an S4 wagon.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 12, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Why can't a diesel get mated with an AWD? VW/Audi's TDIs get 42 MPG highway and higher real world is often reported. Mate that with an AWD and you can get utility, AWD, and MPG. This also resolves the issue of high MPG vehicles also being fun to drive... it is possible.



I think mondeo did a good job summing up why VW doesn't make an AWD diesel. Maybe as diesels catch on in popularity, you'll start to see more variants.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 12, 2011)

Glenn said:


> I think mondeo did a good job summing up why VW doesn't make an AWD diesel. Maybe as diesels catch on in popularity, you'll start to see more variants.



No.   VW makes an AWD diesel.   They don't import it.   In Europe, diesel is cheaper than gasoline.   Here, diesel passenger car owners pay the truck hate tax.   If they paid the same gasoline taxes as passenger cars, the fuel would be cheaper.

VW is also very careful about not intruding into their more upscale Audi market.   Those cars will be getting diesel first.   Right now, it's just the A3 (the Golf platform) and the Q7.   The whole lineup should have a diesel option in a couple of year.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 12, 2011)

Geoff said:


> No. VW makes an AWD diesel. They don't import it. In Europe, diesel is cheaper than gasoline. Here, diesel passenger car owners pay the truck hate tax. If they paid the same gasoline taxes as passenger cars, the fuel would be cheaper.


It's only 5 cents/gallon, it still wouldn't make up the difference. It has more to do with the mix of refineries in Europe being set up to produce more diesel than in the U.S.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 12, 2011)

mondeo said:


> It's only 5 cents/gallon, it still wouldn't make up the difference. It has more to do with the mix of refineries in Europe being set up to produce more diesel than in the U.S.



It's the taxes, not the cost at the refinery.   Look at the price of marine or AG diesel.   It's the same as home heating fuel.

Diesel contains 30% more energy than gasoline.   On the spot market, they're usually within 10% of each other.   (Gasoline is $2.83 today, Diesel is $2.91).   If the taxes were the same, diesel would almost always win.   It loses in a cold winter when home heating oil spikes.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 12, 2011)

I gassed up the other day. Diesel 10 cents more than premium. It's a shame they tax it so much. It's a great way save fuel without reinventing the wheel.


----------



## bvibert (Aug 12, 2011)

Glenn said:


> It's a shame they tax it so much. It's a great way save fuel without reinventing the wheel.



Agreed.  It seems like it wasn't that long ago that diesel was cheaper...


----------



## mondeo (Aug 12, 2011)

Geoff said:


> It's the taxes, not the cost at the refinery. Look at the price of marine or AG diesel. It's the same as home heating fuel.
> 
> Diesel contains 30% more energy than gasoline. On the spot market, they're usually within 10% of each other. (Gasoline is $2.83 today, Diesel is $2.91). If the taxes were the same, diesel would almost always win. It loses in a cold winter when home heating oil spikes.


The problem with your logic is that it's wrong. Average gasoline tax in January was 48.1 cents/gallon, for diesel it was 53.1 cents. So, that makes the difference at the refinery greater than the tax. I lost the site, but the refinery cost for diesel is 62% of the end cost, for gas 66%. Tax was an additional percent on diesel, but so was distribution, and marketing, and the other category that I've forgotten. Take the cost of diesel at the pump, subtract 5 cents or so (varies by state,) and you have the cost it would be if the tax was the same. It's that simple.

And under any justification of a fuel tax, it makes sense to tax diesel at a higher rate specifically because it does contain more energy per unit volume. Diesel vehicles produce greater road maintenence costs per gallon and greater pollution (any measure that you want to go with works here.)


----------



## mondeo (Aug 12, 2011)

Glenn said:


> I gassed up the other day. Diesel 10 cents more than premium. It's a shame they tax it so much. It's a great way save fuel without reinventing the wheel.


Except it doesn't save fuel. It saves volume, but not energy. Volume doesn't matter.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 12, 2011)

mondeo said:


> The problem with your logic is that it's wrong. Average gasoline tax in January was 48.1 cents/gallon, for diesel it was 53.1 cents. So, that makes the difference at the refinery greater than the tax. I lost the site, but the refinery cost for diesel is 62% of the end cost, for gas 66%. Tax was an additional percent on diesel, but so was distribution, and marketing, and the other category that I've forgotten. Take the cost of diesel at the pump, subtract 5 cents or so (varies by state,) and you have the cost it would be if the tax was the same. It's that simple.
> 
> And under any justification of a fuel tax, it makes sense to tax diesel at a higher rate specifically because it does contain more energy per unit volume. Diesel vehicles produce greater road maintenence costs per gallon and greater pollution (any measure that you want to go with works here.)



The federal tax difference is about 6 cents.   In Vermont, the state tax spread is 15 cents per gallon.   It's a real diesel hate tax that reflects the anti-business policies of Vermont.   

You'd think that rational public policy would be to encourage people to use the more fuel-efficient fuel.  That's what Europe does.   You have it exactly backwards.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 12, 2011)

Geoff said:


> The federal tax difference is about 6 cents. In Vermont, the state tax spread is 15 cents per gallon. It's a real diesel hate tax that reflects the anti-business policies of Vermont.
> 
> You'd think that rational public policy would be to encourage people to use the more
> fuel-efficient fuel. That's what Europe does. You have it exactly backwards.


So what you're arguing is that VW/Audi should produce an AWD diesel for that lucrative Vermont market? Brilliant. In the rest of the country, it's only 5 cents, as states, on average, tax diesel less. The national market matters, not so much the second smallest state in the country.

And it's not a more efficient fuel by any measure other than gas tank size and time to fill said tank. If you refine a barrel of crude into diesel, you'll get less than if you refine it into gasoline. On top of that, the lower heating value is actually lower (by about 1%) than gasoline. And direct injection takes out most of the comparative actual loss associated with gas engines by removing the throttle and giving better contol of combustion. Adding in the higher weight of diesel engines offsets the rest due to the higher cycle efficiency.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 12, 2011)

mondeo said:


> So what you're arguing is that VW/Audi should produce an AWD diesel for that lucrative Vermont market? Brilliant. In the rest of the country, it's only 5 cents, as states, on average, tax diesel less. The national market matters, not so much the second smallest state in the country.
> 
> And it's not a more efficient fuel by any measure other than gas tank size and time to fill said tank. If you refine a barrel of crude into diesel, you'll get less than if you refine it into gasoline. On top of that, the lower heating value is actually lower (by about 1%) than gasoline. And direct injection takes out most of the comparative actual loss associated with gas engines by removing the throttle and giving better contol of combustion. Adding in the higher weight of diesel engines offsets the rest due to the higher cycle efficiency.



No.

I have little interest in owning a diesel beyond generic interest in interesting cars that have diesel engines.   I don't trust them in -30F, they take forever to warm up, and I have previous life experience with fuel jell problems with flatland diesel.   If I had a heated garage, I might have a different opinion.

...and if you want some diesel trivia, the brown UPS trucks are powered by an Italian inline 6 diesel from VM Motori.   VM also has a diesel in the old Jeeps and Dodge Caravans sold on the export market.


And by your contorted logic, the entire US truck fleet would be running gasoline engines.  They don't.   I wonder why that is?


----------



## ctenidae (Aug 12, 2011)

We should all have Sterling engines that run on rubbing acohol and birthday candles.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 12, 2011)

ctenidae said:


> We should all have Sterling engines that run on rubbing acohol and birthday candles.



I'm waiting for 100% ethanol so I can save money on my bar tab.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 12, 2011)

Geoff said:


> And by your contorted logic, the entire US truck fleet would be running gasoline engines. They don't. I wonder why that is?


It's a completely different use case. The additional weight doesn't make up anywhere near the same percentage in a truck, making it mute, they've got a 12-16 gear transmission, the physical size of the engine is different, etc. Cars call for a wider power band, lighter engines, and higher power for a given displacement. An Atkinson cycle gas engine with direct injection would have the same (or slightly higher) efficiency as a comparable diesel. Essentially by definition.

Never mind the fact that if they all used gas, the refinery split would be so heavily tilted to gasoline that there would have to be significantly more cracking involved, driving up gas costs and making diesel cheaper.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 12, 2011)

mondeo said:


> Mating it to AWD would probably drop it to 38 instantly, add the fact that you're paying 15% more for diesel, and voila, worse than the Impreza.


This reasoning is ridiculous. The Impreza is going to get 37 MPG because Subie decreased the HP. You assume that a competitor would keep all specs the same. This is a thread about IDEALS not only changing one thing and keeping all things consistent. If VW or Subie came out with an AWD Hybrid or AWD Diesel, they could make it 40+ MPG highway by making other adjustments. Drop the HP or loose some weight and you could have a good utility wagon or CUV at 40 MPG highway. 

Maybe it wouldn't be fun enough for you. So you have fair criticism that my "ideal" formula does not include fun. Everyone else in this thread seems to enjoy not having fuel efficient vehicles and not caring that the tech is there but they aren't being given better options. I just don't know what to think about that...


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 12, 2011)

The tech is there, its just itd increase the cost of every vehicle out there to a point where noone would buy them. "The Center for Automotive Research projected bringing cars and trucks to a 56 miles per gallon CAFE standard would cost about $6,700 per vehicle." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/obama-unveils-sharp-incre_n_913485.html).

 Ill take my 22mpg and way more capability, for 20 grand, opposed to a little sardine can that gets 40mpg but is going to fall apart as soon as you hit a dirt road. Again, those are my ideals. Mine are power and fun, yours seem to be efficiency and boredom. 

And you can blame the feds for the weight problems. Mandated crumple zones, a million sensors, etc, all that shit weighs more than cars in the past. Your going to need to pass laws to reduce weight in vehicles, or pay more for advanced tech. The worst example of this is the mandated TPMS sensors (thanks to the good ol Ford Exploder and Firestone), which is mandated by law on all vehicles made from 07 onwards. Now I get a sweet blinking yellow light on the dash due to my 10ply 32" tires running 60psi. Thanks Uncle Sam. I appreciate that. You only added 20 useless pounds to my vehicle and increased its cost for nothing.

Also you clearly dont have kids. I think your fanatical obsession with MPG will go out the window one you have a couple little ones in the back screaming bloddy murder cause you wanted so save a couple cents in fuel driving them around. That is the appeal of SUVs. Its not a need thing, its a want. Most want something big and powerful with lots of capability and are willing to pay for it. Sure I could probably get around with a Fiesta or Civic, but I sure as hell dont want to deal with chains, shitty ground clearance, cramped quarters, and subpar performance that comes with high mpg all winter. Then I cant access trails come mud season, and oh yeah, no more towing my boat or my sleds anywhere. Screw that.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 12, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> This reasoning is ridiculous. The Impreza is going to get 37 MPG because Subie decreased the HP. You assume that a competitor would keep all specs the same. This is a thread about IDEALS not only changing one thing and keeping all things consistent. If VW or Subie came out with an AWD Hybrid or AWD Diesel, they could make it 40+ MPG highway by making other adjustments. Drop the HP or loose some weight and you could have a good utility wagon or CUV at 40 MPG highway.
> 
> Maybe it wouldn't be fun enough for you. So you have fair criticism that my "ideal" formula does not include fun. Everyone else in this thread seems to enjoy not having fuel efficient vehicles and not caring that the tech is there but they aren't being given better options. I just don't know what to think about that...



I would buy this instantly.  I don't give a F about fun in a car. A car is a tool to get me to the fun.  A $20 bill isn't fun either....but it can create some.


----------



## Glenn (Aug 12, 2011)

What do you drive Cannonball?  I'm on the iPad and too lazy to scroll through this thread. :lol:


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 12, 2011)

Glenn said:


> What do you drive Cannonball?  I'm on the iPad and too lazy to scroll through this thread. :lol:



I drive a Tundra because I need a truck for work.  I've driven a truck since I was 17 because I've needed one for work since then.  I see vehicles strictly as a utilitarian tool.  

My wife drives a CRV which is our ski vehicle.  Due to her work, she can drive whatever, so we make her car our utilitarian vehicle that fills any gaps my truck leaves.  I / we would love to  buy an even more utilitarian vehicle like Riverc0il describes.

Edit: may also be worth mentioning that we always pay cash for our vehicles (no loan). So we are happy to put that considerable savings towards efficiencies in a vehicle (MPG, etc) but not towards frivolousness (extraneous power, etc).  So I feel like we are a pretty good litmus for the type of car Riverc0il is describing.  Just haven't found it.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 12, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> This reasoning is ridiculous. The Impreza is going to get 37 MPG because Subie decreased the HP. You assume that a competitor would keep all specs the same. This is a thread about IDEALS not only changing one thing and keeping all things consistent. If VW or Subie came out with an AWD Hybrid or AWD Diesel, they could make it 40+ MPG highway by making other adjustments. Drop the HP or loose some weight and you could have a good utility wagon or CUV at 40 MPG highway.
> 
> Maybe it wouldn't be fun enough for you. So you have fair criticism that my "ideal" formula does not include fun. Everyone else in this thread seems to enjoy not having fuel efficient vehicles and not caring that the tech is there but they aren't being given better options. I just don't know what to think about that...



You mean drop the power from its current rating that's already 10hp down on the Impreza? While adding weight? Right now they're very similar cars, in terms of size, power/weight, etc. The Impreza got there because it's an all new car, with a lower weight, CVT, new more efficient engine, etc. In short, it IS the definition of what you can do with a commercially viable car. They'll probably add direct injection in a couple years to squeeze a little more out of the engine, but 2 mpg on top of 37 is only worth about $80 every 15,000 miles. An extra couple thousand on the price of the car just doesn't trade once you start getting into the upper thirties, and with the Impreza, that's where you're at. And diesel simply doesn't work out for passenger vehicles in the U.S. The math doesn't lie.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 13, 2011)

mondeo said:


> You mean drop the power from its current rating that's already 10hp down on the Impreza? While adding weight? Right now they're very similar cars, in terms of size, power/weight, etc. The Impreza got there because it's an all new car, with a lower weight, CVT, new more efficient engine, etc. In short, it IS the definition of what you can do with a commercially viable car. They'll probably add direct injection in a couple years to squeeze a little more out of the engine, but 2 mpg on top of 37 is only worth about $80 every 15,000 miles. An extra couple thousand on the price of the car just doesn't trade once you start getting into the upper thirties, and with the Impreza, that's where you're at. And diesel simply doesn't work out for passenger vehicles in the U.S. The math doesn't lie.


What car are we talking about? You seem to continue to reference current cars. This thread isn't about current cars. What if Subie stuck a hybrid into the new Impreza? Then you have your HP, AWD, and boost MPG even more. What if VW stuck its AWD system into a Golf? Not as much of a weight penalty as its larger cars. And they could trim enough weight to offset the AWD system, I am sure. Bigger feats have been accomplished. What if WV swapped out the diesel for a hybrid and threw in the AWD? Let's not limit this conversation... lots of manufacturers have AWD systems and perhaps cars better suited to this type of conversion.

Going back to the Impreza example. that car is too small for most skiers and families. And in reference to MPG jumps, a better comparison is mid to high high 20s to jumping to low 40s (which is real world MPG on most AWD mid-sized vehicles vs real what TDI owners report). Not a great argument by using the Impreza as an example as most folks are not going to consider a car that small (though it does properly serve a segment and is good MPG for AWD). Even still, don't forget that most TDI owners report mid-40s highway with a light foot so the difference is going to be bigger than 2 MPG.

Though again, I ain't arguing against the Impreza. I am just saying that more can be done. Much more. 2 MPG is not worth fussing over, especially in the upper 30s. But 10+ MPG is worth fussing over. And when calculating out fuel cost savings, don't forget that today's prices are likely close to bottom line... prices will continue to increase over the lifetime of a car. And as fuel prices increase, the relative difference between diesel and gas decreases and the savings increases.

I recall rumors of Subie looking into Hybrid (perhaps in partnership with Toyota who they are already in bed with). So Subie certainly seems to think there might be something to a hybrid AWD system.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm talking about current cars because that is what's known to be possible. You're ignoring the fact that adding technology increases cost. Diesel adds 2-5k, same for a hybrid, hybrids add weight and don't really help on the highway, DI adds cost, etc. The guys that decide what technology goes into cars are pretty good at this stuff, much better than anyone on this board. The Subaru was designed with all these things in mind. Look at the cars that have come out in the last couple years, after the design cycle had time to adjust to the run up in gas costs up through 2008. There's been a jump in the efficiency of everything. 10+ mpg isn't just left on the table, if it could be done for a reasonable price, it would be available. Organic improvements in efficiency will continue as technology matures and becomes more cost effective,and the trades will change as gas becomes more expensive. I wouldn't be surprised to see camless engines showing up in 5-10 years, which would offer pretty big benefits to efficiency but today would probably add 5-10k to the cost of the engine and be troublesome for maintenance. Carbon fiber will start to play a much bigger role, and the weights will start to come down, but right now it's still cost prohibitive.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm holding out for the 30K personal helicopter that gets 100 mpg and runs on water.  That would be ideal.


----------



## Edd (Aug 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm holding out for the 30K personal helicopter that gets 100 mpg and runs on water.  That would be ideal.



That technology for that price is ludicrous!! Dumbest post ever!  I'm done with this thread! (slams door and leaves)


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 14, 2011)

I figure if computers used to cost many thousand dollars and now can be had for a few hundred, my hope for the 30K helicopter is realistic when I'm in my 90s :lol:


----------

