Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Ford F-150 SuperCrew EcoBoost

[kenm]

I don't think an engine like the 2.2L Duratorq, 145hp/275ft-lb diesel is going to be a draw to typical pickup buyers, even in the marginally smaller T6 Ranger, which is still on the heavy side of 2 tonnes for the 4x4. The 1,478kg Jetta has 140hp/236ft-lb and pulls 0-60 in just under 9 seconds. The T6 Ranger would be a dog with the Duratorq.

there are plenty of Rangers out there with the 2.3L four cylinder engine and they seem fine...a small diesel would be even better (likely better than the 4.0L V6 dog they still have in there too).

The base price of the Jetta is $15,875. To get the diesel, you have to move up to the Comfortline, $ 23,875. The $8000 difference in price isn't generated just by the extra goodies. Even if you keep it in the Comfortline range the 2.0 starts at $19,075 or $4800 less than the TDi.

that is intellectually dishonest to compare the 2.slow base price with the well equipped mid trim diesel model...and if that is how you wish to "prove your point", you are being rather ridiculous.

i am sure there are other differences between the vehicles, as when i almost purchased a 2010 TDI Comfortline just over a year ago, the price premium was "only" about $2500...unfortunately, the VW website isn't working to go through it quickly to get every difference...and i don't feel like navigating through the pdf brochure, as it will take far too long to do.

when quickly looking at the VW USA site, the mid trim model with the 2.5L engine is $19,845 vs $22,525 for the TDi, a difference of $2,680...the price differences between US VWs and Canadian VWs isn't much (last i checked, about $2k, which is a far cry from Toyota, who prices Canadian models $5-$9k higher than down south)...as i said, i did all of this homework as i almost bought one, but decided to hold out for the new model, which i didn't like.

........not only intellectually dishonest, but god damn annoying, since that comparison keeps getting rolled out over and over again, by various posters. Let's eradicate this shady comparison once and for all.

- The Jetta Trendline is a stripper model, plain and simple. It doesn't belong in any comparison, with the possible exception of a base model Toyota Corolla CE. Volkswagen doesn't offer a TDI option with this car, or any other engine option other than the ancient 2.0 L, 115 hp gas engine, which can't break the 10 second mark for a 0-100 km/h time.
- The only fair price comparison, of gas to diesel in a Jetta, is the 2.5 I5 gas to the TDI. The base price of the Jetta Comfortline 2.5 5M is $21,175 compared to $23,875 for the Comfortline TDI 6M. The TDI price premium is $2700. The 2.5 has a half second 0-60 advantage, but you gain an extra gear on the TDI. If you opt for no clutch pedal, the TDI DSG is $3000 more expensive than the 2.5 Tiptronic, but the performance is pretty much equal.

-Additionally, the Global Ranger is available with a 3.2 L, 197 hp, 347 lbs-ft., I5 diesel. I'm guessing that its performance would be sufficient.

[Ex-airbalancer]

One thing I do not like on most new trucks especial a ford is the hieght  of the truck
On the chevy it is about 2 inches then my old truck On ford it is probably  a foot higher
Major pain in the ass to get into the side boxes on the cap

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I don't think an engine like the 2.2L Duratorq, 145hp/275ft-lb diesel is going to be a draw to typical pickup buyers, even in the marginally smaller T6 Ranger, which is still on the heavy side of 2 tonnes for the 4x4. The 1,478kg Jetta has 140hp/236ft-lb and pulls 0-60 in just under 9 seconds. The T6 Ranger would be a dog with the Duratorq.

there are plenty of Rangers out there with the 2.3L four cylinder engine and they seem fine...a small diesel would be even better (likely better than the 4.0L V6 dog they still have in there too).

The base price of the Jetta is $15,875. To get the diesel, you have to move up to the Comfortline, $ 23,875. The $8000 difference in price isn't generated just by the extra goodies. Even if you keep it in the Comfortline range the 2.0 starts at $19,075 or $4800 less than the TDi.

that is intellectually dishonest to compare the 2.slow base price with the well equipped mid trim diesel model...and if that is how you wish to "prove your point", you are being rather ridiculous.

i am sure there are other differences between the vehicles, as when i almost purchased a 2010 TDI Comfortline just over a year ago, the price premium was "only" about $2500...unfortunately, the VW website isn't working to go through it quickly to get every difference...and i don't feel like navigating through the pdf brochure, as it will take far too long to do.

when quickly looking at the VW USA site, the mid trim model with the 2.5L engine is $19,845 vs $22,525 for the TDi, a difference of $2,680...the price differences between US VWs and Canadian VWs isn't much (last i checked, about $2k, which is a far cry from Toyota, who prices Canadian models $5-$9k higher than down south)...as i said, i did all of this homework as i almost bought one, but decided to hold out for the new model, which i didn't like.

........not only intellectually dishonest, but god damn annoying, since that comparison keeps getting rolled out over and over again, by various posters. Let's eradicate this shady comparison once and for all.

- The Jetta Trendline is a stripper model, plain and simple. It doesn't belong in any comparison, with the possible exception of a base model Toyota Corolla CE. Volkswagen doesn't offer a TDI option with this car, or any other engine option other than the ancient 2.0 L, 115 hp gas engine, which can't break the 10 second mark for a 0-100 km/h time.
- The only fair price comparison, of gas to diesel in a Jetta, is the 2.5 I5 gas to the TDI. The base price of the Jetta Comfortline 2.5 5M is $21,175 compared to $23,875 for the Comfortline TDI 6M. The TDI price premium is $2700. The 2.5 has a half second 0-60 advantage, but you gain an extra gear on the TDI. If you opt for no clutch pedal, the TDI DSG is $3000 more expensive than the 2.5 Tiptronic, but the performance is pretty much equal.

-Additionally, the Global Ranger is available with a 3.2 L, 197 hp, 347 lbs-ft., I5 diesel. I'm guessing that its performance would be sufficient.

Nothing at all dishonest. It you're interest is saving fuel, the TDi should be compared to the most fuel efficient alternative, which is the 2.0. The TDi is only available in higher trim levels because part of the cost of the diesel is hidden in the package. An exec from VW let it slip that they lose money on every diesel they sell in the US.

It either comes out to $2700 dollars more or $4800 more depending on a person's performance expectations on cars that are otherwise identical.

Lets take the EPA figures and current US fuel prices. The Jetta TDi gets a combined 6.9L/100km, the 2.0 gets 8.4L/100km and the 2.5 gets 9.0/100km. Using their basis of comparison: Based on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, 24135 annual kilometers and Reg. Gas: $0.959 per liter Diesel: $1.009 per liter, the 2.0 will cost you $259 more a year to run, while the 2.5 will cost you $411 more a year to run. The break even point for the diesel over the 2.5 ends up being 6.5 years. The break even point for the the diesel over the 2.0 is 18 years.

Using the current Canadian average fuel prices of $1.28 for regular and $1.217 for diesel the break even point is better, but it's still 8.5 years for the diesel over the 2.0 and 3.5 years over the 2.5. If a person trades every 4 years, he gets 6 months or $383 in savings over purchasing the 2.5.

[dirtyjeffer]

but you aren't just getting the diesel engine for that price difference...you are often getting more features as well...so, if you want to compare apples to apples, compare comparably equipped models...as i said, the difference, when compared properly is about $2500ish...and it isn't all about the fuel economy...the diesel models are generally regarded as being more reliable, have a higher resale value, require less maintenance and offers a lot more robust drive than the 2.0L engine (which is a carry over from 1993 - no, that is not a typo)...if it was just about the cheapest thing to drive, then get a $9995 Accent or a base Versa...why not compare those too?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

but you aren't just getting the diesel engine for that price difference...you are often getting more features as well...so, if you want to compare apples to apples, compare comparably equipped models...as i said, the difference, when compared properly is about $2500ish...and it isn't all about the fuel economy...the diesel models are generally regarded as being more reliable, have a higher resale value, require less maintenance and offers a lot more robust drive than the 2.0L engine (which is a carry over from 1993 - no, that is not a typo)...if it was just about the cheapest thing to drive, then get a $9995 Accent or a base Versa...why not compare those too?

I did. The $2700 and $4800 differences are for Comfortline packages on the TDi, 2.0 and 2.5 right from the VW website. I used the models comparison tool to see that the options lined up. Unless the website is wrong, the numbers are accurate.

[kenm]

Nothing at all dishonest. It you're interest is saving fuel, the TDi should be compared to the most fuel efficient alternative, which is the 2.0. The TDi is only available in higher trim levels because part of the cost of the diesel is hidden in the package. An exec from VW let it slip that they lose money on every diesel they sell in the US.

It either comes out to $2700 dollars more or $4800 more depending on a person's performance expectations on cars that are otherwise identical.

Lets take the EPA figures and current US fuel prices. The Jetta TDi gets a combined 6.9L/100km, the 2.0 gets 8.4L/100km and the 2.5 gets 9.0/100km. Using their basis of comparison: Based on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, 24135 annual kilometers and Reg. Gas: $0.959 per liter Diesel: $1.009 per liter, the 2.0 will cost you $259 more a year to run, while the 2.5 will cost you $411 more a year to run. The break even point for the diesel over the 2.5 ends up being 6.5 years. The break even point for the the diesel over the 2.0 is 18 years.

Using the current Canadian average fuel prices of $1.28 for regular and $1.217 for diesel the break even point is better, but it's still 8.5 years for the diesel over the 2.0 and 3.5 years over the 2.5. If a person trades every 4 years, he gets 6 months or $383 in savings over purchasing the 2.5.

Unless VW decides to manufacture a Trendline TDI, the base model price comparison is invalid. If you compare the two in equal trim levels, the difference is $4800, but the 2.0 has inferior performance. As for the "VW losing money" quote; do you have a link or reference on that? I can see that happening on a low volume halo car, but I find it hard to believe that would happen on a car with any kind of volume. Volkswagen sells a lot of diesels in Canada. I also can't imagine that they're making a lot of profit on those $15,875 Jetta Trendline stripper models. On Fuelly.com, 2010 & up Jetta TDI's are averaging around 38 U.S. mpg in all around real world mileage. 2.5's and 2.0's are running about 26 mpg. I drive 30k, mostly highway km per year and I kept my last car for 8 years, so it wouldn't take me long to get payback. In the end it comes down to the individual. A diesel would not be a good choice for someone who drives 20k or less a year, with 50% or more city driving. The calculations aren't universal; they have to be applied individually. The same can be said for hybrids.

[dirtyjeffer]

the Jetta 2.0L Comfortline is $19,075...the 2.5L Comfortline is $21,175...the TDi Comfortline is $23,875.

unfortunately, the VW website keeps crashing when i pull up the comparison to see the difference in features, but right out of the gate, the 2.0L and 2.5L get a 5sp transmission vs the 6 sp transmission in the TDi...as well, the TDi will feel more like the 2.5L than the 2.0L, so it is better to compare those vehicles...if you do, the difference is $2700...there are likely other differences as well, but i can't confirm that as the website isn't working...and i don't buy the claim they are losing money on them, not one bit...VW doesn't give their vehicles away.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Nothing at all dishonest. It you're interest is saving fuel, the TDi should be compared to the most fuel efficient alternative, which is the 2.0. The TDi is only available in higher trim levels because part of the cost of the diesel is hidden in the package. An exec from VW let it slip that they lose money on every diesel they sell in the US.

It either comes out to $2700 dollars more or $4800 more depending on a person's performance expectations on cars that are otherwise identical.

Lets take the EPA figures and current US fuel prices. The Jetta TDi gets a combined 6.9L/100km, the 2.0 gets 8.4L/100km and the 2.5 gets 9.0/100km. Using their basis of comparison: Based on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, 24135 annual kilometers and Reg. Gas: $0.959 per liter Diesel: $1.009 per liter, the 2.0 will cost you $259 more a year to run, while the 2.5 will cost you $411 more a year to run. The break even point for the diesel over the 2.5 ends up being 6.5 years. The break even point for the the diesel over the 2.0 is 18 years.

Using the current Canadian average fuel prices of $1.28 for regular and $1.217 for diesel the break even point is better, but it's still 8.5 years for the diesel over the 2.0 and 3.5 years over the 2.5. If a person trades every 4 years, he gets 6 months or $383 in savings over purchasing the 2.5.

Unless VW decides to manufacture a Trendline TDI, the base model price comparison is invalid. If you compare the two in equal trim levels, the difference is $4800, but the 2.0 has inferior performance. As for the "VW losing money" quote; do you have a link or reference on that? I can see that happening on a low volume halo car, but I find it hard to believe that would happen on a car with any kind of volume. Volkswagen sells a lot of diesels in Canada. I also can't imagine that they're making a lot of profit on those $15,875 Jetta Trendline stripper models. On Fuelly.com, 2010 & up Jetta TDI's are averaging around 38 U.S. mpg in all around real world mileage. 2.5's and 2.0's are running about 26 mpg. I drive 30k, mostly highway km per year and I kept my last car for 8 years, so it wouldn't take me long to get payback. In the end it comes down to the individual. A diesel would not be a good choice for someone who drives 20k or less a year, with 50% or more city driving. The calculations aren't universal; they have to be applied individually. The same can be said for hybrids.

Nope, i don't have a link anymore. The one I had is dead.

Individual calculations vary. High mileage drivers will certainly get a payback sooner. In my case the payback would be twice as long. Fuelly numbers are interesting, but anecdotal.

In order to build a business case, though, you have to be able to demonstrate profitability and market demand. So far none of the current full line manufacturers save for VW have been able to make the case. That could change, but until I see diesels in the showrooms, I'm not holding my breath.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

the Jetta 2.0L Comfortline is $19,075...the 2.5L Comfortline is $21,175...the TDi Comfortline is $23,875.

unfortunately, the VW website keeps crashing when i pull up the comparison to see the difference in features, but right out of the gate, the 2.0L and 2.5L get a 5sp transmission vs the 6 sp transmission in the TDi...as well, the TDi will feel more like the 2.5L than the 2.0L, so it is better to compare those vehicles...if you do, the difference is $2700...there are likely other differences as well, but i can't confirm that as the website isn't working...and i don't buy the claim they are losing money on them, not one bit...VW doesn't give their vehicles away.

IIRC manual transmission TDi gets to 60 in 9 seconds, the 2.0 in 9.5, and the 2.5 in 8.2 seconds. So it kind of splits the difference.

[dirtyjeffer]

if you have ever driven them, the TDi is a joy to drive...the 2.slow, not so much.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

if you have ever driven them, the TDi is a joy to drive...the 2.slow, not so much.

I considered the Golf wagon as an alternative to the Outback. It has a decent engine, and an all-round good car. Joy? that means different things to different people, I guess.

I couldn't find the specific quote I was thinking of, but I did find this: " Volkswagen has been losing money, along with market share, for years in the U.S. market."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39174292/ns/business-autos/t/new-chief-aims-boost-vws-fortunes-us/

The quote I was thinking of specifically mentioned diesel sales.

I did find this:"At prevailing exchange rates, the Fiesta ECOnetic would sell for about $25,700 in the U.S" which is $3k more than a maxed out Fiesta SES in the US.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Guys...guys...this is supposed to be about my...I mean, the EcoBoost.  Not diesels and Jettas.  Go take one out, and whatever you do, do NOT, and I'm being very serious here, do NOT turn off the traction control...and by that I mean also don't step on the go pedal...too much...please, don't do either of them with an EcoBoost F150...you will NOT enjoy one single moment of it.  I promise.  You roll on the gas nice and mature like and all of a sudden the back tires are screaming for their lives...crazy.  Don't do it. It's sure to cause trouble.

The projected fuel economy numbers (for the diesel) were supposed to be 25% better than the old 5.4. The Ecoboost gains about 18% better fuel economy with better power delivery than the 5.4 (Amen to that!), and is much cheaper to produce.

I might be able to argue that point (about the improved economy)...anyone smell a skid steer full of cow poop?  I do...it's no better at reg spd than the '08 was.  If it is it's marginal at best.  But in other ways it's so much more that who gives a crap.  I find myself humming/singing "Can't touch this" whenever I step on it.  

................that'd be an appropriate plate for it....MC HAMMR or just HAMMER............wonder if I can get that past the wife.......

True enough, we have gotten off into the brier patch.

The EPA numbers do bear out the 18% claim though. Your mileage may vary. 

[kenm]

Nope, i don't have a link anymore. The one I had is dead.

Individual calculations vary. High mileage drivers will certainly get a payback sooner. In my case the payback would be twice as long. Fuelly numbers are interesting, but anecdotal.

In order to build a business case, though, you have to be able to demonstrate profitability and market demand. So far none of the current full line manufacturers save for VW have been able to make the case. That could change, but until I see diesels in the showrooms, I'm not holding my breath.

So, which fuel economy numbers should one trust? The statistical average of 1007 anecdotes, representing 25,825 fill-ups and 11,638,523 miles tracked, or a number obtained from some pseudo-cycle that represents the driving patterns of absolutely no one. Transport Canada fuel economy numbers are absolutely useless and the U.S. EPA numbers are only slightly better. I go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList or http://www.fuelly.com/car/ for fuel economy data. I'll take anecdotal over hypothetical every time.

[kenm]

IIRC manual transmission TDi gets to 60 in 9 seconds, the 2.0 in 9.5, and the 2.5 in 8.2 seconds. So it kind of splits the difference.

Jetta 0-100 km/h times:

2.0 5M         = 10.1 sec
2.0 Tiptronic = 11.3 sec
2.5 5M         = 8.5 sec
2.5 Tiptronic = 8.8 sec.
TDI 6M         = 9.0 sec
TDI DSG       = 9.0 sec.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Nope, i don't have a link anymore. The one I had is dead.

Individual calculations vary. High mileage drivers will certainly get a payback sooner. In my case the payback would be twice as long. Fuelly numbers are interesting, but anecdotal.

In order to build a business case, though, you have to be able to demonstrate profitability and market demand. So far none of the current full line manufacturers save for VW have been able to make the case. That could change, but until I see diesels in the showrooms, I'm not holding my breath.

So, which fuel economy numbers should one trust? The statistical average of 1007 anecdotes, representing 25,825 fill-ups and 11,638,523 miles tracked, or a number obtained from some pseudo-cycle that represents the driving patterns of absolutely no one. Transport Canada fuel economy numbers are absolutely useless and the U.S. EPA numbers are only slightly better. I go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList or http://www.fuelly.com/car/ for fuel economy data. I'll take anecdotal over hypothetical every time.

Anecdotes are anecdotes. They vary wildly depending on driving style and conditions. You can believe whatever you want but for comparison's sake a proper controlled experiment is much more significant. A car that gets 5% better fuel economy on the test will get 5% better fuel economy regardless of variables.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

IIRC manual transmission TDi gets to 60 in 9 seconds, the 2.0 in 9.5, and the 2.5 in 8.2 seconds. So it kind of splits the difference.

Jetta 0-100 km/h times:

2.0 5M         = 10.1 sec
2.0 Tiptronic = 11.3 sec
2.5 5M         = 8.5 sec
2.5 Tiptronic = 8.8 sec.
TDI 6M         = 9.0 sec
TDI DSG       = 9.0 sec.

And? 0-60 times vary by tester, test track and ambient conditions.

[kenm]

Nope, i don't have a link anymore. The one I had is dead.

Individual calculations vary. High mileage drivers will certainly get a payback sooner. In my case the payback would be twice as long. Fuelly numbers are interesting, but anecdotal.

In order to build a business case, though, you have to be able to demonstrate profitability and market demand. So far none of the current full line manufacturers save for VW have been able to make the case. That could change, but until I see diesels in the showrooms, I'm not holding my breath.

So, which fuel economy numbers should one trust? The statistical average of 1007 anecdotes, representing 25,825 fill-ups and 11,638,523 miles tracked, or a number obtained from some pseudo-cycle that represents the driving patterns of absolutely no one. Transport Canada fuel economy numbers are absolutely useless and the U.S. EPA numbers are only slightly better. I go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList or http://www.fuelly.com/car/ for fuel economy data. I'll take anecdotal over hypothetical every time.

Anecdotes are anecdotes. They vary wildly depending on driving style and conditions. You can believe whatever you want but for comparison's sake a proper controlled experiment is much more significant. A car that gets 5% better fuel economy on the test will get 5% better fuel economy regardless of variables.

On a small sample number, the anecdotes would have to be taken with a grain of salt, but with a large sample number, the extreme numbers will have little effect, as is shown on the graphs on Fuelly.com, and is also the case with all polling and sampling.

[Ex-airbalancer]

Who gives a fack about a Jetta 
We drive full size trucks, if we get under 15 l/100km it is a bonus
We do not want  facking small size truck because we find them to facking small or we would have bought one
Dont want a diesel because it cost 10gs , there no small diesel out there so no point talking about it
And this is no euroland so no point talking about what they have there
Ford suckd, GM rules 

[kenm]

IIRC manual transmission TDi gets to 60 in 9 seconds, the 2.0 in 9.5, and the 2.5 in 8.2 seconds. So it kind of splits the difference.

Jetta 0-100 km/h times:

2.0 5M         = 10.1 sec
2.0 Tiptronic = 11.3 sec
2.5 5M         = 8.5 sec
2.5 Tiptronic = 8.8 sec.
TDI 6M         = 9.0 sec
TDI DSG       = 9.0 sec.

And? 0-60 times vary by tester, test track and ambient conditions.

Exactly. Since these numbers are supplied by VW, one would have to assume that they are obtained under equal conditions. Of course, one could always hypothesize that VW is claiming their gas powered Jettas to be slower than they actually are, but that would seem unlikely. It would be more likely that you would have to push a 2.0 Jetta over a cliff to get a sub 10 sec. 0-100 time. The 2.0 gives up 25 hp and 111 lbs. ft. to the TDI, so, in no way is the performance comparable. Modern diesels are no longer the 2 digit hp, smoky conveyances, that they were 30 years ago. In the right circumstance, they are a legitimate alternative to the gas engine. The TDI part is probably the best thing about a Volkswagen Jetta TDI. It's the Volkswagen part of the equation that sometimes causes grief.

With the Ford F150, and other trucks, a diesel could be very beneficial in a lot of applications, but not with a $7k or greater price penalty, and all the development and advancements going to the gas engines. The case just isn't there. The gas engines are evolving rapidly, so they have the advantage. With the Jetta, the gas engines are getting a little long in the tooth, so by comparison, the TDI looks much more attractive. If there was enough take-up in the pick-up market to develop or borrow a modern 3 or 3.5 litre turbo diesel, it would make a helluva light truck engine, but it's probably not going to happen any time soon.