The Audi/VW group is making a big mistake not offering the A3 with a diesel quattro option as well. The front drive VW sportwagen is cheaper and much more useful, returning the same mpgs.

Once again Audi shoots themselves in the foot with the A3. First, it didn’t offer quattro with the 2.0 engine (just the 3.2), which would help explain abysmal sales figures for the past few years.

A German car, as I mentioned, can be worth considering and can be fun. The VW TDI and Audi’s upcoming A3 diesel are good examples of enjoyable and conservation-minded ones. But … as I mentioned, modern ones are not likely to be low cost or durable according to sources like Consumer Repairs (for many, that’s not a problem). Ask a few mechanics. Sorry to disagree, but not all older high-mileage cars are like our Benz diesel (ask Honda or even newer-model Ford owners). So … if you buy a Deutsche Diesel, even a VW or a BMW, BYW (Bring Your Wallet).

Yes, Erik, the Audi diesel Q7 gets better mileage (17 city) than the Q7 V-8 (13 city) or even the Q7 V-6 (14 city, premium gas please, although some people will claim 30 mpg downhill with the engine off). The engines do put out less CO2 than their gas counterparts, but considerably more than the average vehicle. The diesel Q7 “Bloatmobile” has no environmental merit and cannot be justified on such grounds, despite what the misleading ad suggests, and if 1/3 of Americans bought a diesel Audi SUV, we’d need far more imported oil instead of sending it back. If Americans somehow justify buying these guzzlers anyway, or if you rationalize buying one for your kids’ safety, then see ex-EV1′s first post above. Mortgaging our kids’ future to the oil producers and our Asian creditors is clearly not in the interests of our kids, and that’s why a post like this is relevant even on a hybrid site.

Let me just hit a few points you brought up.

Your first paragraph detailed your complaint with using an SUV to market fuel savings. While I agree, more people should trade in their SUV that they dont need for a smaller car, the fact is, they wont. Americans buy big cars, its a fact you cannot escape. The Diesel Q7 will hit 30mpg on the highway, which a few years ago was Honda Civic territory. All this while still producing 406lbft of torque, and putting out less emissions than a gasoline engine. If someone is looking at a 4.2L guzzoline engine Q7, and they have the 3.0L TDI as an alternative, you will indeed be lowering fuel consumption, so the ad is in no way misleading. An SUV buyer is not getting a Prius, sorry.

The second article is simply a personal judgment call about buying a german car, and has nothing to do with the commercial, or the issue of the benifits/costs of diesel. Parts for these cars are more expensive here in the states, but labor rates are not any more than a chevy. both being roughly $100 per hour for labor. Disesls are also far less maintanence intensive than guzzoline engines, the rest of the car however, is the same. My bias is equally obvious, I dont find my german car at all expensive to maintain, and would never be caught dead driving a honda or japanese vehicle. They dont drive the same. Diesel gives enough torque to make the American driver happy, and german cars do perform better at speed. The prius is nice for an appliance that takes you to and from work which is all you “need”, but many Americans want something more than a blender to drive.

Your personal experience with a diesel was pretty standard. Any vehicle that gets up there in years, and miles becomes expensive to maintain. its why people buy new cars. And the 190D by the time you traded it in, was a dog. underpowered, even by merc diesel standards. most people wanted the 300D, supply and demand. you had a car no one wanted, so it wasnt worth anything. Also, gas was cheap, so diesel wasnt a priority, the market changed, these all influence car prices. I have seen people trade in $50,000 cadillacs only a few years old, but because of the market, they were only worth $17,000.

As to a hybrid being the answer, I would agree. but it dosnt have to be a slug or a comprimise, or an offense to the environment like modern hybrid vehicles. (look at the carbon footprint of BUILDING a hybrid car to look at its real environmental impact). but a series hybrid, with a diesel electric powerplant running at constant RPM, powering four hub mounted motors, giving performance, fuel economy, and no large battery pack which is a burdon on the environment, now THAT would be something.

even electric cars, unless powered by green sources (currently very very unlikely) are burdons on the environment compaired to a diesel powerplant in a car. and diesel is already very common, most people just dont realize how common diesel is, if youre not looking for it, it just looks like a regular pump.

Some of the above posters noted that an Audi SUV isnt’ the best poster child for diesel, and they may be right. However, an Audi SUV with a TDI is much more efficient than the same SUV with a gasoline engine!! Sure, I wish Ford would bring the diesel version of their upcoming Fiesta to the US! That is THE version we should be getting, no the lousy gasoline version.

Audi should not associate oil import reduction with the fuel-guzzling SUV “co-starring” in the commercial. Fuel mileage for diesel luxury German cars — especially for Audi’s SUV’s — is really not all that good, if you look at EPA figures, and if everyone drove one we would need far more imported oil. If you are concerned about the environment or oil dependence, you can certainly do better (although VW’s Jetta TDI does get decent mileage). If people use the commercial to justify buying cars like Audi SUV’s (“Hey, I’ll just buy the diesel version, even if it uses lots of fuel”), the message of this commercial could do more harm than good.

Diesel engines may save fuel costs and may be as durable as any other engine or hybrid system, but maintenance costs are also a significant factor for the individual owner, and here, the Audi/Merc/BMW/VW/Posrsche diesels may be poor “poster children” for low-cost vehicles. All are fine automobiles worthy of consideration, but do not expect them to be low-cost, low-maintenance vehicles, based on sources like COnsumer Reports (also talk with your mechanic). If you’ve been to Europe or Asia, you will notice many economical diesels, but they are not available in the US. If Honda or Ford introduce a US diesel car, this could change.

FWIW, we had a Mercedes 190 Turbo diesel for many years. Fuel costs were good and the engine was quite solid, but for the last couple of years, the car wound up costing nearly as much in unscheduled maintenance as a new car payment. Despite conservative driving and by-the-book maintenance, the Mercedes needed frequent, expensive repairs. In the low fuel cost environment of the late ’90′s, it was very hard to get a trade and the car wound up bringing about as much as a Pontiac Grand Am of the same year (with a much higher initial cost).

So … diesel fuel cost is only one aspect of car ownership. If you are looking at a diesel, also look at total ownership costs and absolute fuel mileage. If you can’t live without German engineering, a diesel version may be fine, but for low-cost, energy dependence, and environmental considerations, a hybrid may make more sense (although perhaps hybrids are not as exciting or as hedonistic as a German car).

But if I’m only in the market for a $20K car, there is no way I can justify buying a $45K car because it’s diesel. In order for diesel to gain ground in the US, it’s going to have to be offered, not only by VW, but also by the other mainstream US automakers, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc.

Frankly, it doesn’t seem like these car makers are interested in Diesel