 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / June 2006Want to buy Diesel Caddy SRX
Hey General Motors, I'd like to buy a Cadillac SRX, but not until you put a good diesel in it. I don't want either gas-guzzling engine you currently offer. I want a good turbo-diesel like MB puts in the E-Class. If you can't figure out how to make your own turbo-diesel (even after blowing all those billions on the Fiat fiasco), that's OK, just buy them from MB. I don't mind. Also, like the guy in Autoweek just wrote, get rid of all the gas engines in the Hummer line up and use just diesels. Gas engines in those things is just dumb. You need diesels for your all your mid-size on up SUV's. The sooner the better. Just do it. Plenty of people will buy them, but only if you beat the other guys to market with them. You're welcome. > Hey General Motors, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You're welcome. I'm sure GM will take immediate heed of your words. Much more so than anyone here, who could collectively not care less about your ideas for GM.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >>Hey General Motors, >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I'm sure GM will take immediate heed of your words. Much more so than > anyone here, who could collectively not care less about your ideas for GM. While posting something that GM is obviously not going to do to a newsgroup probably isn't the best idea if you want to get the top brass' attention, you have to admit, the OP has a point. GM has lots of Diesel experience but seems to be loath to put them in any "consumer grade" vehicles, probably because of the Olds Diesel fiasco back in the 70s. But it's going to have to be done, sooner or later, as the price of oil isn't planned to come down to earth any time soon. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel snip > While posting something that GM is obviously not going to do to a > newsgroup probably isn't the best idea if you want to get the top brass' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > nate Diesels sell very well in Europe. They have for the longest time. They probably would sell well in North America as indicated by the success of Volkswagen diesel cars. It's just a matter of mentality. Until recently, we were never were in gas saving mode but things could change drastically and the Big 3 are going to have to respond. Diesel cars aren't the slow, smole producing cars they were in decades past. I took a turbo diesel Volks for a spin a few months ago and was impressed by the engine's power and smoothness. All it takes is for the price of gas to go up enough so that it hurts in the pocketbook. It's coming, IMHO. I don't know if it's the same in all of Europe but, in France, you are taxed according to how many "chevaux fiscaux" or "tax horsepower" the engine of your car produces. In NA, we seem not to care too much about all of this because we still have that "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" mentality. Do we really need Hummers? As for the Olds Diesel fiasco of the 70s, were the engines 100% diesels? "Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > Diesels sell very well in Europe. They have for the longest time. They > probably would sell well in North America as indicated by the success of > Volkswagen diesel cars. It's just a matter of mentality. Until recently, > we were never were in gas saving mode but things could change drastically > and the Big 3 are going to have to respond. Diesels still have a long way to go with emissions and fuel mileage too. The price of gas is less right now making a diesel less attractive. The engineering will probably be overcome before the negative public perception though. Greetings, I disagree, but allow me to explain. As for mileage, my sister-in-law recently sold her 2003 VW New Beetle with the 1.9L turbo diesel and the 5-speed manual tranny and it got right at 50mpg on the highway. You couldn't ask for better mileage and never an ounce of black smoke at all. If the Beetle isn't your schtick, I own a 2004 Chevy 2500HD crew cab with the 6.6L Duramax diesel and the Allison tranny. This truck is big and powerful (rated for 15,500lbs capacity with a bed-mounted hitch), but unloaded I can get 20-21mpg on the highway if I keep it at or below 70 mph. That's not bad for a truck so big you don't park it - you Dock it! In my area, diesel prices run between regular and mid-grade (for example, with regular selling at $2.75 and mid-grade at $2.85, the same place has diesel at $2.83). The other nice thing about diesel prices is that they don't change as much as gas prices, so even though it may cost a little more than regular gas the price doesn't rise or fall nearly as much or as far. I don't know how much more mileage you can ask for since there isn't a similar gas-powered vehicle that compares to either the Beetle or my Chevy that will get the same mpg. And they both meet the 2005 emissions requirements to boot. The 2007 emissions requirements won't be hard to meet either, although finding the ultra-low sulfer diesel fuel may be a problem for a while until more stations make it available. The engineering issues have already been overcome, but based on what you say about the emissions, mileage and fuel prices I have to agree that you clearly demonstrate the issue with public perception. It is my personal opinion that the Big Three have been missing the boat for years by not putting small and mid-sized diesels into cars and their smaller capacity trucks and SUV's. I would have settled for a smaller diesel in a half-ton truck (1500) rather than the one I got in my current 2500HD but I'm certainly not complaining about what I have. A 6-cylinder diesel with around 225 HP and 350 ft-lbs of torque in a 1500 would work just fine, especially if it would get over 20+ mpg on the highway (25 would be a good target). Now if we can just convince Chevy to build it I believe it would be very popular. Cheers - Jonathan > "Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > engineering will probably be overcome before the negative public > perception though. > Greetings, > > I disagree, but allow me to explain. (snip of an informative post.) > Cheers - Jonathan Couldn't agree more with you on diesels. I've had two GM diesel pickups. 6.2's and 6.5's. I'm in the market for a '01-'06 GMC or Chevy 2500 diesel now. What I'm wondering is, are you sure about the mileage you're getting with your 2500? If so, that's great. But every one I talk to that has the trucks with the Duramax gets about 19mpg tops. Garrett Fulton "Garrett Fulton" <lbfulton@alltel.net> wrote in message > Couldn't agree more with you on diesels. I've had two GM diesel pickups. > 6.2's and 6.5's. I'm in the market for a '01-'06 GMC or Chevy 2500 diesel > now. What I'm wondering is, are you sure about the mileage you're getting > with your 2500? If so, that's great. But every one I talk to that has > the trucks with the Duramax gets about 19mpg tops. A guy I work with can also confirm that. When he pulls his fifth wheel camper, he still get fairly good mileage and has plenty of power. The engine was designed for truck use though, hauling heavy loads, not for cruising the highway on the daily commute or vacation. I have no idea if it can be adapted. Greetings, I clock my mileage and fuel usage religiously (reset the trip meter every fill up and write it down on the fuel receipt) and I can be very confident in reporting the following: In combined city/highway driving that I commute in, unloaded with the AC on (like I would ever turn it off here in Florida!) I consistently get between 18.5 and 19 mpg. When I say "combined", in my 27.5 mile commute every day 15 miles is turnpike at 70mph and the rest is in town with stoplights and turns. When I've taken the truck on trips with a negligable load (suitcases and the wife, but not in that order) and I can keep it on the highway at 68-70 mph, I can clock 20mpg routinely and have gotten as high as 21 on an extended run. Remember, no hills here in Florida! Anything over 70mph and the mileage begins to drop noticably, so I'm pretty conservative on the highway. Get it up around 80 and even unloaded it drinks fuel, although I can't say what it will get because I don't drive at a constant 80 but the fuel gauge does drop quicker. On trips from where I live in Central Florida to places like Savannah, GA or Charleston, SC (5 and 8 hours away respectively), towing a 4000lbs camper with our gear and the dog I can clock between 15-16mpg if I keep it down below 70mph. The camper is a pop-up so there isn't much wind resistance since the top sits at the same height as the tailgate so I'm dealing just with the weight. These figures have been very consistant for the past 45,000 miles that I've owned the truck. FYI, I own one of the last LB7 Duramax motors before the LLY motor came out and the only modification I've done is add a second in-line fuel filter under the frame rail with a 2 micron element. The only other thing I wish I had is the 6th gear for the Allison instead of my current 5-speed. Cheers - Jonathan >> Greetings, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Garrett Fulton > Greetings, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Cheers - Jonathan Thanks for taking the time. Your mileage must be doable, a I did a little surfing on the GM diesel truck websites and several guys there were also getting your good mileage. Your engine has that variable inlet guide vane turbocharger which is supposed to increase the efficiency as compared to the older engines. The guys I talked to here locally all had older trucks with the wastegate turbo. Anyhow, I'm getting one soon hopefully. Garrett Fulton Greetings, Now is a very good time to be buying a new diesel truck because the last of the 2006 model run is still available. When the 2007 models come out you will have to search pretty hard to initially find the ultra-low sulfer fuel that they will be required to use, but the 2006's still use the low-sulfer blend (500ppm) and it is still widely available. Plus when the new fuel comes out you will be able to use it with no problem in your 2006 but the converse is not true - the 2007's won't ever be able to use the 500ppm low-sulfer fuel at all or it could cause damage (according to the label on the fuel pump). That could potentially put you in a bind if you get a 2007 and can't find the new fuel. I've never considered the mileage I'm getting to be exceptional since I have friends with similar trucks all getting similar mileage. Anyone getting less might have either the 4.10 rear axle or a heavy foot - both of which will conspire to cut your mileage down. My truck came standard with the 3.73:1 axle although the 4.10:1 was available and I believe is standard on the 3500 series. The newer motors not only have the variable nozzle turbo, but redesigned heads and injector placement as well plus those with the Allison have 6 speeds instead of the previous models with 5 (like mine). The 6th speed is a double overdrive plus it also has a manual shift rocker switch on the gear selector lever so you can shift up or down if you think that you're smarter than the transmission. I've done plenty of towing and personally I've been very impressed by just how well the Allison works when under load when you use the Tow/Haul mode. I'll admit that I got very lucky when I bought my truck. I purchased it in the window of time between Christmas and New Year's and GM had almost $9,000 in rebates plus what the dealer was willing to take off the price just to get it off the lot before the end of the year. All told I saved enough money that the Duramax and the Allison were essentially free and the current Kelly Blue Book value for my truck is within a few hundred dollars of what I paid for it new even after more than 2 years and almost 45,000 miles. I guess timing is everything. Cheers - Jonathan > Thanks for taking the time. Your mileage must be doable, a I did a little > surfing on the GM diesel truck websites and several guys there were also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Garrett Fulton > Anything over 70mph and the > mileage begins to drop noticably, so I'm pretty conservative on the highway. > Get it up around 80 and even unloaded it drinks fuel, although I can't say > what it will get because I don't drive at a constant 80 but the fuel gauge > does drop quicker. With my quite streamlined Chrysler LH car I get 5% less mileage at 70mph than at 60 mph. With a higher vehicle I would expect a larger difference. > "Bassplayer12" <perettij@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Diesels still have a long way to go with emissions and fuel mileage too. How so? The VW TDI meets current Euro emissions standards (on low sulfur Diesel, which we will be getting soon) and economy is comparable to the popular hybrids. > The price of gas is less right now making a diesel less attractive. The > engineering will probably be overcome before the negative public perception > though. The engineering is *already* "overcome..." nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message >> Diesels still have a long way to go with emissions and fuel mileage too. > > How so? The VW TDI meets current Euro emissions standards (on low sulfur > Diesel, which we will be getting soon) and economy is comparable to the > popular hybrids. So then we should put the TDI engine in all of our cars. Let's start with the SRX Sure, the engineering is getting better, but on larger engines for the mass market, it is not as practical just yet. > In NA, we seem not to care too much about all of this because we > still have that "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" mentality. Do we > really need Hummers? As for the Olds Diesel fiasco of the 70s, were > the engines 100% diesels? I've never seen an 80% diesel. It's either a diesel, or it's not. If you mean it was based on a current gas engine design...then yes, that's true. Ian >> In NA, we seem not to care too much about all of this because we >> still have that "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" mentality. Do we [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you mean it was based on a current gas > engine design...then yes, that's true. Exactly. >>>In NA, we seem not to care too much about all of this because we >>>still have that "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" mentality. Do we [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Exactly. However, the VW Diesels (based on the 70's watercooled I-4s) have not had any of the problems that the Olds motors did. If GM had just sweated the details a little more things might be very different today. I'm surprised at the failures, really, as the Olds gasoline V-8 has a reputation for being very stout as long as you keep the revs down. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>In NA, we seem not to care too much about all of this because we >>>>still have that "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" mentality. Do we [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'm surprised at the failures, really, as the Olds gasoline V-8 has a > reputation for being very stout as long as you keep the revs down. (snip) I agree: GM took what they thought was one of their most durable V-8 engines in their lineup and tried to convert it to a diesel. (They seemed to think highly of this Olds engine also when they put a fuel-injected version of it in the 75-78 Sevilles.) Some of the later *replacement* diesel engines were more nearly durable, but by then the reputation had been established. Good thing they didn't cause their customers to experiment with a LESSER durable of their v-8's!!! s > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > been established. Good thing they didn't cause their customers to > experiment with a LESSER durable of their v-8's!!! s Someone once mentioned to me that what they tried to do was just convert the heads... Is it accurate? > While posting something that GM is obviously not going to do to a > newsgroup probably isn't the best idea if you want to get the top brass' [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But it's going to have to be done, sooner or later, as the price of oil > isn't planned to come down to earth any time soon. I'll agree with that. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Hey, Bob Lutz is supposed to be a car guy. You don't think he reads the car newsgroups? You ever hear of an open letter? You don't think a good diesel SRX is a great idea? >> Hey General Motors, >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I'm sure GM will take immediate heed of your words. Much more so than > anyone here, who could collectively not care less about your ideas for GM. > Hey, Bob Lutz is supposed to be a car guy. You don't think he reads the car > newsgroups? You never know who is behind postings here. > Hey, Bob Lutz is supposed to be a car guy. You don't think he reads the car > newsgroups? Don't know. Do you believe he does, or that a newsgroup is an effective vehicle for this kind of message? > You ever hear of an open letter? Yup. Usually not at all effective. > You don't think a good diesel SRX is a great idea? I think it would be a great idea. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Gee where were you when Lincoln was offering a BMW turbo diesel in the Mark V? Car Mags said it was a better car the BMW and sold for thousands less. Seems 'everybody' wanted a diesel but the cars sat on dealers lots and Lincoln dropped it after one year. Both GM and Ford offer diesels engines in their truck lines but buyers prefer to buy those with gas engines at least five to one. ;) mike hunt > Hey General Motors, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You're welcome. Mike, nice to hear from you again. The Mark V tid-bit is news to me, but irrelevant as you are talking, even if true, ancient history from a time when gas was cheap in this country. As for the truck diesels, you astound me with such shallow thought. The truck diesels that the big three sell in HD trucks are not appropriate for anything but the largest SUV and work trucks. They are very good doing what they were designed to do, but cost too much and only justify their cost under heavy payloads and very heavy use. Since they are targeted at serious loads, they get poor mileage under "civilian" use. Not interested in such a thing. What I am interested in are the very modern diesels MB and BMW, for example, put in cars and light duty SUV's/ They are comparable in cost to same power gas engines. They accelerate quickly, have good throttle response, get superb city/highway mileage, and are quiet and smell-free (or nearly so). If GM had such engines available in mid-size SUV's they would sell all they could make. I'd love an SRX that could manage 20 mpg city and low to mid 30's highway and give 0-60 in under 9 seconds. I think a lot of people would. The German's are about to start putting their modern diesels in mid-size SUV's. The domestics cannot afford to sit idly while the do that. - nopcbs > Gee where were you when Lincoln was offering a BMW turbo diesel in the > Mark V? Car Mags said it was a better car the BMW and sold for thousands [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> You're welcome. > Hey General Motors, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > make your own turbo-diesel (even after blowing all those billions on the > Fiat fiasco), that's OK, just buy them from MB. I don't mind. Of course they couldn't sell them in the states that have banned diesels. Now that wouldn't be very smart of GM, would it. DC/MB recently said with the coming cleaner diesel fuel in NA, plus with their newer designs they hope to have an acceptable diesel for all states in two years. I expect the much improved diesels of the last several yrs will eventually be more accepted in NA. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.