quote:It will be the same story as it is with many of the light duty diesel pickup owners. They may buy an auto the first time ..until they get a $4000 trans rebuild @ 175k while the engine could have taken them 500,000 if time didn't kill the thing first. Then they go for the stick unless their life expectancy is less than the next rebuild. US auto makers just aren't interested in making any real efforts to make diesel work. They just tack on too many riders to it and effectively neutralize all the benefits. That 6 speed auto may work out but there's no reason why a comparable 5 or 6 speed stick wouldn't be desirable. If they threw it in a Wrangler ..I'd buy one in a minute. Turning 17-19 mpg into 25+ would be a dream come true. It won't happen ..somehow it will be sabotaged.
I just checked the specs on the Liberty Diesel and it comes standard with an automatic which is very disappointing. DC obviously doesn't understand the point of having a diesel engine so they may as well pull the product off the market.
quote:The lack of a choice is an intrinsically bad thing. [/QB][/QUOTE] So if you could have all the benefits of an 'automatic' transmission with none of the downsides, and better fuel efficiency, can you honestly tell me that you would still complain about 'choice'? I think the real complaint should be with respect to the lame transmissions used by automakers in general. There is no excuse for the traditional fluid-coupled autotranny to have existed for so long, its conceptual design basically unchanged since the 1950s.
Originally posted by XS650:
quote:Hey! My Subaru already *sounds* like a diesel.
Originally posted by vwoom: Wow, a Subaru boxer diesel..talk about a low vibration oil burner! If not a TDI for my next ride, I might cozy up on a flat 4 or 6 Subie diesel.. The article though is inaccurate that VW has not introduced a diesel for the Touareg...it has in fact sold the V10 TDI since last year in the US.
quote:I remember seeing late 80's Subaru Justy's with CVT transmission.Apparently the design then couldn't handle much power.Honda had one for a little while too I belive.
Originally posted by TooSlick: I think the best auto transmission for passenger car diesels will turn out to be the Continously Variable Transmission or "CVT", developed by VW/Audi. All they need to do is beef it up to handle 300-400 ft-lbs of torque. If you want to see the transmission of the future, drive an A4 or A6 Sedan with the CVT. It makes even 5-6 speed Autos seem hopelessly dated....The 3.0L, V-6 equipped Audi sedan with the CVT is turning only 2300 rpms @ 80 mph - that's V-8 territory. This results in very low average piston speeds, almost no engine noise and excellent fuel efficiency. Between their excellent five speed "Tiptronic" - introduced in 1998, the "multitronic" CVT and their new DSG transmission I think that Vw/Audi leads the industry. Use of a CVT allows you to accelerate while keeping the engine right at the torque peak. In addition the very wide range of ratios allows you to run low rpms even at 70-80 mph. Most of these TDI diesels have their peak torque in the 1800-2200 rpm range, so they are turning too fast on the highway - even with a 4/5 speed auto transmission - to yield optimum efficiency.... Tooslick
quote:This is something that they are apparently incapable of doing with any long term reliability. Diesels should far outlive gasoline engines ..yet even your higher end automakers aren't prepared to design 25 year autos. They still make them overly sophisticated and make refit costs prohibitive. Ultimately autos, in one configuration or another, are in our future, but they will remain the weak link in any automotive drivetrain for the next decade at least. It may not necessarily mean that the failure rate will be as high as our domestic DC or Ford trash ..but will send the vehicle to the junkyard or force it to be traded simply due to the expense of the rebuild. They just can't figure out that another $150 in production costs saves $4000 down the road. Not a bad rate of return over a 10-20 year investment.
All they need to do is beef it up to handle 300-400 ft-lbs of torque.
quote:Maybe the big automakers did figure that out, and that's the reason nobody builds rock solid auto trannies. Why spend the extra $150/unit, just so the car will last to an insanely high mileage that the first owner probably doesn't care about? If they invest that extra money, they either turn in lower profits, or raise the price of their cars. Nobody else builds great autos, so each company has nothing to lose by continuing that tradition. By the time the tranny goes out, it may well total the car, and that keeps their new car market alive.
Originally posted by Gary Allan: They just can't figure out that another $150 in production costs saves $4000 down the road. Not a bad rate of return over a 10-20 year investment.