Thoughs on VolksWagen TDI's?
 

Hey everyone,

I did a search for VW TDI's but didn't find much, so I thought I'd start a topic to ask. What are your thoughts on them? I'm 19 and I'd like to get something that's fuel efficient, somewhat newer (last ten years), and safe. Obviously they're diesel, but usually diesel isn't too overwhelmingly higher than gas (actually right now it's cheaper by 20 cents where I live.) I also think I'd feel safer in a VW as opposed to a tiny Metro or Civic. I always ask people in parking lots who drive TDI's if they like them or not, so far I haven't talked to anyone who doesn't absolutely love it.

So, any thoughts on TDI's? A used one is going to be right around $8,500 average I figure.

I'd rather have an $8500 Civic than an $8500 TDI. The TDI would end up costing more for maintenance, I believe. And if you do your own maintenance, the Civic would be much easier to work on. TDIs are good if you want fellow owners to wave and if you want to buy cute t-shirts.

Sorry if I sounded abrupt. I was just kind of talking off the top of my head. a TDI could be a fine car. It just wouldn't be my personal first choice. Just make sure to get a 5-speed.

i would love to have a tdi. i would try to make some bio diesel so suplement the prive of diesel around here.

I'd go for a civic, the TDIs aren't very clean running, have high maintenance costs, and cost too much. But that's just me.

If your looking for info on TDI's check out
https://forums.tdiclub.com/
60K plus members with lots of great TDI info.

I have a TDI wagon and really like it. I have to admit I really looked at it because of the better then average safety rating. I have done all my own work on the car and not spent much so far. I would say it depends on what you need to do with the vehicle. The wagon has a bunch more room then some of the other high mileage cars out there, which was also a plus for me. And now I really like the fact I can burn bio-diesel as well. My last tank came in at 65.84 mpg, but my lifetime is 54.54

Oh if your looking get a model between 99 and 03, the 04 and newer have bigger engines and more power but lower fuel economy.

Oh and with the ultra low sulfur diesel switch over the emissions are much much better now, or if you use bio-diesel they are even better.

I repair my TDI and it stays repaired. I invariably replace broken crap on her Honda with momentarily un-broken crap that will soon break again. And hers is definitely NOT easier on which to work.
TDI's cost too much? Maybe it's supply and demand at work. Maybe there's some logic to why otherwise sane people are paying more for a TDI. Used first generation TDI (1996~1997 Passat) are still pulling in $8500. What 96~97 Honda has retained such a percent of it's initial value? Her 2000 Honda cost more when new, has fewer miles, and is now less valuable used than mine.
High maintenance cost? A fuel pump that puts out 30,000 psi with a time accuracy to .00004 seconds (one degree of crank rotation at 4k rpm) isn't cheap, so don't use substandard fat as fuel thinking it is 'biodiesel'. It requires a lot of gallons of free fuel to compensate for ruining one injection pump by running crap fuel. Use trusted fuel and these pumps are serviceable for 300,000 miles+. Then have it rebuilt for the next 300k. The rest of the engine is no more expensive than on a lesser car.
Not clean running? When using the emissions standards that include ALL emissions, the TDI are cleaner than the alternatives. Not by much, but measurably cleaner. Now put quality biodiesel instead of quality petrodiesel in the fuel tank and a gasoline engine would have to get 200 mpg to be as clean as a 50 mpg TDI. Even a 15 mpg Hummer (Ahnold's perhaps?) on B100 is a clean and green as a 60 mpg Insight.
I'm not an impartial source of information on the TDI. My last five cars have been diesel, 4 of them TDI. At the top of the post I alluded to "otherwise sane" people willingly paying a premium for a TDI. I'm not one (neither sane, nor willing to pay $8500). I paid under $4000 last autumn for the one I now have.

Our t shirts are pretty much crap, too. But the "Girls of TDIClub" calendar has TDI owning cuties pictures with their car on each month.

I'd say go for the TDI ;) From my research (I was looking for one - more on that in a minute), the weakest link is the glow plugs (which isn't a bad repair). And as said -- these things retain their value (so buying is a little higher, but selling will also be high). Diesel in the winter is typically more expensive, but in the summer (when gas prices go up) diesel goes down (at least that's been the local trend).

Now, as I said - I was looking for a TDI... But having a helluva hard time FINDING said TDI. Why? The owners just don't want to sell :p Now, if the car a money pit beast -- value would be very low and the market would be saturated (my last car has a bad reputation for a very crappy atx - and I guarantee you can find one no problem :p).


EDIT:
I forgot to mention... If you end up with the TDI - and plan on doing your own work on it... Get the Bentley manual (don't skimp and get the Chilton's or any other). I have one -- and it's the most comprehensive manual I've ever used (on my 2.0 gasser). I bought my manual from someone that sold his TDI -- here's what he marked (with little flags).... Brake Switch, fuel injection system, inter cooler, brakes, cabin filter. I think he cranked up the boost (just based on certain notes he wrote) - but I'm not quite sure.

I've also been looking to trade in my 06 Toyota Matrix xR for a 99-03 VW Golf TDI 5-speed, but they are difficult to come by here in L.A. :(. It's a wise choice. And yes... the parts might be slightly expensive given that it's a diesel, but it's okay. It's also modern German engineering (i heard not so reliable), but you can make any car reliable. Just do some research before you buy it so you can be knowledgeable about the recalls, etc.

The TDI is a great engine, that happens to wrapped in a newer VW, which means the usual relatively low reliability. Now, to put this in perspective, relatively low means instead of an average of a problem per year, there will be maybe two problems per year, which isn't a deal breaker imo, but something to be considered. It by far is the most efficient vehicle line for most drivers because of outstanding engine efficiency, which is probably why it's so popular and expensive. I wouldn't get any new car, and recommend an early 80s/late 70s compact, since that will be the cheapest, but if you absolutely have to have a newer car it's a fine choice. Then again, so is an early 90s Civic imo. Each has their strengths and weakness, so research and pick based on them.

I urge anyone who is considering buying a TDI to compare it to the insight on fueleconomy.gov for air quality ratings...making the assertion that the TDI is cleaner is wrong, and a simple search will show you that.

And for the reason why tdis hold there value so well, I will say that I think their prices are bloated, I would much rather save 1000 dollars buying an insight than a golf tdi. But that's just me.

Tdi
 

I drove a new Golf TDI 5-speed a couple years ago and nearly bought one -- I really liked the torque and FE, but a few concerns came up:

• Reliability
• Costly Maintenance Schedule
• Emissions

-Check Consumer reports for the reliability odds on different components.
-It requires Full-Synthetic oil, and the timing belt change is more frequent than the average model.
-I used to be a big Diesel proponent, but as SVO mentioned, the emissions are terrible. The "Clean Diesel" emissions system is better (not available in VW cars in the U.S. yet) -- but it's a new technology (my guess is they'll put the Urea injection design in the next model -- which requires re-filling it periodically). Honda has a design in the works that requires no Urea.

For running costs, and emissions -- there are better choices.

RH77

I know a number of people who have TDI's, I've also owned/worked on two older VW diesels, and grew up with other VW's in the family.
Their CV joints wear out quicker then any other vehicle I've ever seen, along with their suspension struts, their timing belts wear out about as often as a honda (90,000 miles) but to change the timeing belt you need a handfull of VW only tools, I also just talked to a guy who had a 2004 I think it was, who said it was burning thru sensors, and he busted a timing belt that cost him a head rebuild and a tow.
I've recomended them to a few people, but mostly if they live out of town and tend to drive 15+ miles each time they start the car, drive less then that and getting a gas car makes sense to me.

Great suggestion.
03 and older can run semi synthetic oil (Mobil 1 or similar) 04 and newer is fully synthetic and all of them have a 10k oil change interval. I would run fully synthetic oil in any car I bought for the life of the engine and better mpg's. Yes the timing belt is every 100k, not sure what most gassers are, I know our Toyota Sienna is 80k and cost a bit more to have it changed then the TDI. If you mean between the gasser and diesel versions, the timing belts have the same change interval, so that must be a VW thing.
It depends on what your looking at, diesel does have more NOX (smog), but far less CO2 (ozone), personally I would rather have ozone above us and smog down low. I have heard the urea system does require a fill like every 100k (the life of a car in the US) Not sure what VW is going to use.
Also the typical life span of a diesel engine is about 1.5 times or greater then that of a gasser so I took that in to consideration when we bought ours.

If choosing to ignore the major emission component in order to sustain the current "No proof to CO2 adding to global climate change" mantra of the US government, then by all means use the US government's number. If you wish to consider the total impact, and not merely pick and chose emissions you want, then the diesels are better (well, less harmful) than the alternatives.
The Argonne National Laboratory has some interesting data on total well-to-wheel emissions of some different energy sources . Biodiesel (on a kWh to kWh basis) is less environmentally harmful from a total emissions quantity standpoint than some "green" technologies such as natural gas, hydrogen (both liquid and gaseous), grid electric (using the US national average energy mix), ethanol and such. Only renewable electricity (solar, geothermal, tidal, wind) and nuclear had lower total emissions.

You state things just as deceptively, without actually talking about the issues you seem to bring up.

Gasoline engines are much better for air quality, you do not seem to debate that.

However, for GHG emissions, you claims "diesels are better." This is deceptive because CO2 emissions correlate directly to fuel used and the carbon content of the fuel, so, for example, when you compare two cars, you cannot simpy say diesel is better, because my car gets better gas mileage than yours, and allowing that the carbon content of the fuels is not too much different, has lower GHG emissions than yours. On top of that, it also has less sulfur and particulate emissions than yours.

However, unfortunately for TDIs, diesel has a higher carbon content than gasoline (https://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.pdf), so, my car has even lower GHG emissions than yours.

If you want to count "ALL" emissions (as you say), I guess VW may win once we factor in the BS emission levels.

Particulates (soot)
 

Another concern is the concentration of fine particulates or soot. High concentrations are responsible for exacerbation of breathing problems, most of which has been a spike in Pediatric Asthma.

It could be argued all day which chemical emission is the worst and how to control it, but as I'm sure some have realized, there isn't one answer to the question.

A Diesel Golf is going to emit less CO2 than similarly-sized competitor. If you can get 50+ MPG in a Golf, go for it -- but of course consider other options as you are now :thumbup:

Another thing, nobody mentioned the "Ego" emissions of the Passat :sigh:

RH77

EPA already controls for this. They use Carbon content to adjust for engine efficiency. For instance, if a 02 4cyl m/t Camry gets 27mpg combined, and a 02 4cyl m/t Jetta diesel gets 45mpg combined, the Jetta releases ~40% less Carbon than the Camry does. :thumbup:

Diesels emit more PM and NOx than the equivalent gasoline powered car, which emits more COx (x=1,2) and HC. PM<2.5 and HC are both carcinogenic, NOx contributes to smog formation, and CO is toxic w/ exposure being limited to 35ppm in the states. Carbon dioxide may contribute significantly to regional environmental change. Etc... Regarding the EPA emissions ratings, as long as it doesn't influence Americans in obvious ways, it's not a pollutant right? :p

I would like to point out that most of the information for diesel is based on LSD or low sulfur diesel at 500ppm of sulfur. At every pump I have seen and almost everywhere across N.A. you will find ULSD or ultra low sulfur diesel at 15ppm or less. This reduces the particulate emissions and obviously greatly reduces the sulfur output as well. This change also allows for newer models to employ some NOX reducing equipment that will get it at or below even some of the better gassers.

Again I am not knocking gassers; each has its strong points and should be chosen based on many personal consideration, to many for someone else to choose for you. Honestly if someone had a 1.3L diesel weighing around 2000lbs it would get phenomenal mileage. Remember the VW’s are all 3200+ lb vehicles.

Unbeweevabo !!
 

SVO"Boy".....
Hard for me to believe that one guy that doesn't even own a diesel can blow soooo much Smoke !!!!

Educate us, then.

You just try finding one for $8500.

I almost bought an '03 TDi with only 43k miles for $11.995 before I would have negotiated it down, but for the minor fact that it was already sold :D . Honestly, though, I love diesels. Very torquey and low-revving, the way I like my cars, and with phenominal fuel economy to boot. With regular maintenance (and boy, you'd better stay on top of it), diesels last damn near forever, too. As a side bonus, they have great tuning potential. 170hp and 300lb-ft of torque is relatively easy to come by, if a tad bit pricey.

The drawback? Our VW's are assembled in Mexico and are either the most bulletproof, trouble-free car you've ever owned, or a complete POS. There is no in between, and unfortunately, there seem to be more of the latter than the former. Our '00 VW New Beetle was fantastically unreliable, for instance, where my Dad's '00 Passat V6 4motion wagon was positively the most maintenance- and trouble-free car I've ever seen.

if i could find one some day i would go for it. there are plenty of b20 stations around here and i think they are cool because there somwhat rare

Buy an old Porsche or Saab. Unless you can find a German built VW.

I've heard the german built MK1s tend to rust out much easier than the Westmorelands, but who knows if this is the case... In any event, MK1s seem to be right on the verge of VW's penny pinching antics.

I own a 1998 Jetta TDi. I haven't even driven it yet and I already love it. Hearing about a guy making a 400 mile trip, with 700 lbs in gear and passengers, plus a trailer with another 600 some odd pounds, averaging 85 miles per hour and still getting 35 mpg?! If you love FE, then the TDi is the way to go.

Definitely check out www.tdiclub.com Excellent information from diehard diesel fans. So, yeah there is definitely a lot of biased info on there, but I have never seen such a hardcore group of people. TDi owners REALLY love their cars. Any problem you ever face would have TONS of information on how to handle it.

The final nice thing about the TDi is that it, unlike gassers, is easy to get good mileage with. Regardless of how you drive it, you are going to get over 40 mpg. It is really rare to see people getting less than that, unless their car has problems. 50s are average for people who actually try a little, and the 60s are achievable with some effort.

As others have said, the engine will last a LONG time too, so as long as you take care of it, you will have a nice running car. Oh, and the torque is nice too.

I am new to this forum and yes I belong to the TDICLUB.com great site. I have owned my TDI since 8-4-06 and just LUV my BUG. My last tank I averaged 59.437 MPG that was 876.4 mile on 14.745 gals. Right now I have 608.5 mile on it with 7/16s of a tank left, trying to get 1000 miles out of this tank! I owned a new 81 Rabbit with a diesel it back then and I must say the new diesels are nothing like them, the ones now are turbo and have all kinds of power and are fun to drive. Now on the timing belt issue I had mine replaced by a Guru on the forum and I must say these people are the most helpful bunch of people I have ever meet. Since then one of my friends bought a 99 NB TDI with 172000 miles on it and we replaced his timing belt, he is getting somewhere around 55 MPG. To get this kind of mileage you have to drive 55 to 60 MPH. Now finding a TDI is not easy right now, I had looked and looked for a long time before I found mine. A 98 NB with only 31000 miles on it I now have 58000. All I can say is keep looking or if you know a auto dealer let him know you are looking for one. Would I recommend one YES

I drive a 2000 Jetta TDi 5-speed with 140K on the clock, 104K of which has been on self-brewed biodiesel. The car has been phenomenal; no problems or issues that I didn't see coming- like brakes and rotors, antenna coming loose, my 3-yr-old breaking off the center console door, and the glow plug relay failed (in the summer- do we count that?).
This car has never let me down, runs like a Swiss watch, and has 10K oil change intervals. How often are you gassers changing oil?
The last fill was 8.4 gallons at 410 miles- that's 48.8 MPG. Couple that with fuel that costs me .65 cents a gallon to make, and it's dollar-equivalent to getting 235 MPG.
It's also enviromentally friendlier, biodegradable, better for the fuel pump and injectors and smells better.
And the hippies love me for it, even though I'm definitely not one of them.
Put the TDi's on a pedestal where they belong... gas cars- even the revered Insight- tread heavier on the resources than the TDi. I mean, what's the amortized cost of batteries? The last 104K cost me less than $1600 in fuel, and I didn't dump any lead, acid or plastic into the recycling stream.
By the way, my commute is 40 miles one-way, half in crawling traffic, half near speed limits; my weekends usually see me rolling another 200 miles at 80 MPH+ to San Diego and back (especially when the albacore are running).
I'm trying to change my lead-footed ways and see the magic 60 MPG.

There's no need to even go down this road, is there? When TDI people sit around and wonder why everyone thinks they are so smug, just show them this post.

Sounds like a fun car. I hope it continues to do well for you, and that you get 60 mpg.

*cough*roadtax*cough* ;)

Bill, stinkindiesel is correct in his statement, his "thoughts" about TDI and their advantages. I think it is a definate thing to put in the plus side for a TDI. Also I read that vegtable oil (renewable diesel fuel) is significantly more productive than ethanol, it returns 190% of energy put in v/s 125% for ethanol IIRC. And there's that Algae thing to consider too.

Most people don't want to think and figure priusus will fix everything, truth is that they make some new problems in the process.

Really? How much lead and acid is there in an Insight battery pack? I was pretty much with him until then. Even though my gas powered car also has a 10,000 mile OCI and holds less oil than his TDI. I was willing to let that slide.

Then again, hybrid owners, by and large, are no better in my experience. Same for Chevy, Shelby, and BMW fans. Point being, smugness is not isolated to TDi fans...


One more thing I'd like to add: VW's have THE BEST instrument backlighting I've ever seen. The blue-and-red theme is fresh-looking, easy to read, easy on the eyes...and frankly, I just think it looks cool. :thumbup:

Totally.

I may be wrong about this particular case (i.e., the Insight), but most hybrids use non-toxic NiMH batteries.

And, the next generation of HEV/PHEV/EVs will use non-toxic, cheap and abundant LiFePO4 batteries. TDI owners will then have to find something else to be smug about.

Of course, the best of all possible worlds would be a hybrid with a small 20 kW diesel engine with a 100 kW electric motor and battery pack.

I've been driving almost exclusively diesels for the last 10 years, and it's easy to seem smug when you compare them to their gas counterparts. Who drives an F-250 with a gas 7.5 liter and DOESN'T gives envious glances to a Dodge 2500 with a 5.9 Cummins? (mine gets 19/21MPG) Are there any Honda Civic or Accord drivers who haven't looked with jealousy at the TDIs? I'm reading these forums, and it seems that there are alot of people bashing the TDIs and I can't understand it. They are great, competent cars that return incredible fuel mileage with minimal fuss. No staying in the right lane at 50mph, or shifting at 2317rpm because that's the most efficient shiftpoint. Just regular driving gets you 45+ MPG. Smug? Naaaah. Grateful? YESSIR. Thank God for great mileage and cheap biodiesel.

Just read Sludgy's post, and I've been PRAYING for somebody to develop a diesel/electric hybrid. Locomotives, tugboats, ships- they all got 'em... I want a scaled down version of the big boy's toys. Imagine moped MPG's from a car you could cruise to Vegas and back with 4 people. And luggage. We'll get there, eventually.
Whatever you build a battery with, you still can't just toss one in the trash- at least not in California. Not even an AAA. I'm curious, though- what does it take to make a NiMh battery in terms of resources, starting at the mine, through the smelter, the manufacturer and finally to the user. And what do they do with them when they've been exhausted? I'm not baiting anyone, I'm actually curious. I'd drop some coin on a diesel hybrid.
Robbo

The only thing you would be wrong about is labelling NIMH as "non-toxic". People talk about NIMH batteries like they are going to grind them into baby food. Aside from nasty things used in their manufacture, they contain:
oxide of nickel, cobalt, aluminum,. lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, and praseodymium. The Material Data sheet says it may release toxic materials, so lets just stop acting like nimh is an environmental free ride.

https://www.mahaenergy.com/download/p...ycell_msds.pdf

I just read omgwtfbyobbq's post about road tax. It gets better. Filing to pay the .19 cent excise gets me a .50 cent "blenders credit" against my fed return. Talk to your accountant. There's also a one-time fed credit available for the purchase of a biodiesel processor or the components to build one.

Well, from the top: I don't know just how much detail is needed to my assertions. The same government whose EPA you use to back up your selective claims, I believe funds the Argonne National Laboratories I use to back up my wider claim. Is that deceptive, or letting those that know make the claims. Just as you haven't done measurements yourself, and trust the government agencies given the responsibility to produce data to be truthful, so I also use a different agency of that same government for my data.

Air quality? What specifically is being quantified and measured? Particulate count? Gasoline engine emissions have a higher count of particulates. Diesel particulates are larger in size but fewer in number, so you pick one and I'll pick the other and we'll continue forever and both be wrong. There are claims that the smaller size particulates of gasoline combustion get deeper into the lungs and are harder to cough out. I can't debate that diesel particulate is larger in size than gasoline particulate.

I see from your 'garage' that you get 40.17 mpg on gasoline. You can see from my garage that I get 46.29 on roughly an annual blend of B90.

A gallon of gasoline has the energy of 115,500 BTU. A gallon of petroleum diesel has 128,500 BTU, a gallon of B100 biodiesel has 117,090 BTU. My annual B90 would have an average of 118,231 BTU per gallon. My miles per gallon would have to be 2.36&#37; better to be the same BTU/mile efficiency. Instead it is 15% better.

The same 115,500 BTU gallon of gasoline releases enough fossil carbon to create 10.874 kilograms of CO2. The same BTU equivalent in petrodiesel (.899 gallon) releases enough fossil carbon to produce 10.963 kilogram of CO2. The 115,500 BTU biodiesel equivalent (.986 gallon) releases a net of 2.746 kilograms of CO2 made from fossil carbon. My own B90 annual average contributes 3.568 Kg of fossil sourced CO2 to the atmosphere for each 115,500 BTU of work.

My 'work' is being performed 15% more efficiently and yet produces one third the GHG emission of you.

Petrodiesel has a maximum of 15 ppm sulfur. B100 biodiesel has zero. My 10% use of petrodiesel puts my average sulfur content at 1.5 ppm or less. Sorry, I don't know what gasoline sulfur content is so I can't debate this point.

When I talk of "all" emissions or "total" emissions, I want you to remember that the EPA regulated emissions are but a tiny fraction of the total environmental impact. NOx and CO and HC are measured in grams, the CO2 contribution is in the thousands of grams.

And I've just looked at the EPA site to which you link. They have neglected the emission impact of getting the fuel out of the ground, processing it, shipping it and such. That is why the number I use from the Argonne labs are higher than your numbers from the EPA. Must be some more of that "all" and "total" to which I keep referring...

Guilty as charged