Environmentalist chooing between hybrid & Jetta TDI with BioDeisel

Consider that the currently VW diesels available in the US are not very clean burning. In a year or three, after the long delayed regulations to provide clean diesel fuel nationally, VW is sure to import their newer high performance and much cleaner engines. The better engines would die if feed the currently available high sulfur fuel.

If I had to buy based on environmental concerns right now, I don't know what I would do. The Hybrids have their own problems with disposal of batteries and a few other issues.

I think burning BioDiesel negates the issue with the dirty diesel, as I understand it.

It depends on what does the term "biodiesel" really mean (considering your location). Is it a 100% biodiesel or is it just a diesel mix with

And make sure, you get the official confirmation, that the current VW TDI engines are compatible with it. The biodiesel is a very aggresive fluid (at least here in europe), and is known to cause a damage to the injection pump. I don't know, if current TDI PD engines are still having problems with it.

In general, if your current vehicle is a Honda, you will not find the same level of reliability in any VW vehicle. You'd also be somewhat pioneering by adopting a biodiesel-fueled vehicle at this point in time. If you can get a couple more years out of the Civic, my advice would be to do so. You should have a few more options as far as vehicles available to you and the picture as to mileage, fuel availability, and reliability should be clearer.

Seattle is a forerunner on all things environmental. We have several pumps with 99% biodiesel. I have a few friends who've been running it in their TDIs since they got them 2-3 years ago without any problems. I realize it's a bit cutting edge. I could wait but we've just sold our house to downsize and have some money burning a hole in our pocket. The downsizing was also an environmental decision. I just hate continuing to use a car that requires oil from the middle east any longer than necessary.

I gather I cannot expect the same reliablity as with my Honda but what does that really mean? Will the car be in the shop a lot? I can find anything very concrete about this reliability issue.

Thanks for the comments. Sheila

That's a good sign. If it would be a problem, I think they would already know it by now.

Ask your friends? :) Anyway, it depends. If it is a new jetta, then nobody really know, as it is erm... new. Only the time will tell. I am in europe and can't really speak about the specific american problems, bus as far as I can see, the biggest problem you can experience is the incapable stealership. So, if you accidently get some small problem (which can happen) and your dealership is not able to sort it out properly, then the joy begins. Again, ask your friends.

I agree. Washington and the other west coast states have been active advocates in regard to solutions of environmental problems. I wish my state (Ohio) would do more in support of this very important multi-faceted issue.

Regards.

If you were serious about environmentally friendly transport you'd keep the Civic.

Is it really true that more energy is used in manufacturing an automobile than it consumes during its life?

That certainly doesn't argue against reducing fuel / battery consumption during the car's life.

Yes.

Well, it means that if you really do want to look after the environment, you're better off running your old car rather than replacing with a new one.

Sheila,

I am not convinced that biodiesel is much better than regular diesel. It is much more important that it be refined well, like the european low sulpher kind coming here in '07.

I dont see a big problem disposing of the old batteries; theyre not made of anything more special than regular batteries.

Traditionally, when diesels got better fuel economy, but were dirtier, then, imho, the diesel is better for the earth (less global warming greenhouse gasses), but the gas car is better for the local environment (less soot and NOx gasses causing smog or acid rain). The environmentally sensitive driver should follow his/her inclination to be a cheapskate and go with diesel.

If you do a lot of in-town driving, the hybrid has a huge advantage in fuel economy, so go for the hybrid.

If we change the issue to comparing two cars with identical fuel economy, as if you were on the highway a lot, then consider these issues. It burns up less energy to create a gallon of diesel than gas. The diesel also has more energy in it. Clean burning diesel which we will all have in 2 years will pollute the earth less than the same quantity of gasoline.

Otoh, I love my '97 tdi with 162k miles, but may replace it with a civic hybrid because the new tdi's are heavier and get worse mileage than mine by a long shot.

end of rant

To be on the super environmentally good side, at least buy a used (2-3 years old) TDI. If they are well maintained, they go many, many more years than gasoline powered cars.

I have a 2001 Golf TDI and like it a lot. Never had trouble with the engine or transmission. But... VW uses a lot of crummy, cheap ass minor electrical parts, although maybe this has improved since I bought my car.

I agree with the suggestion to wait until the cleaner diesel fuel is out and VW brings over the better diesels. And, although Seatlle seldom goes below freezing, pure biodiesel becomes pure sludge if the temperature drops below freezing.

So what has been you friend's experiences as far as reliability of their TDIs over the past 2-3 years? This may be the best indication of what you can expect from a new one, anyways. Having owned 3 VWs over the past 20 or so years (as well as other domestic and Japanese cars) I can tell you that their strong suit, esp. in the newer models, is not reliability. At least compared to other makes. But, of course, YMMV.

I'd also suggest a visit to tdiclub.com:

Of course, if you're looking just to make a statement by buying a hybrid or biodiesel fueled vehicle, then does it really matter how reliable any make or model is?

I have real trouble believing this. Let's say the average car gets 30 mpg, and is driven 15k miles a year. At todays oil prices that means they are consuming about $1500 a year in fuel. Let's say the average car is kept in service for 12 years. That means, at todays prices they are consuming $18k of fuel over the life of the vehicle.

Now let's say this hypothetical car is a Chevy Cobalt which sells for $15k. If you are consuming $18k of fuel during the life of the car, and you use more energy (which I'm equating with fuel) how are you able to sell it for $15k if more than $18k worth of energy is consumed in manufacturating it. Remember, there are also raw material costs and profits that have to be made.

Now, this comparison isn't completely realistic. Not everyone is paying the same amount for energy. It's almost certain that Chevrolet is not paying $3 for the 120k BTUs of energy (1 gallon of gas). Their vendors probably aren't either. But you have to ask what is the ratio that I as a consumer pay versus the manufacturer pays. Let's say its 3:1. Then the energy costs would still be $6k in order to equate the energy consumption of the car to the energy consumption of the production of the car. Now, while consumer fuel has seen a startling run-up over the past year or two, there still has been a large run-up in wholesale energy cost as well. In otherwords, it might cost $6k now, but 2 years ago it probably would have cost $3k. I don't see how GM or any other company could simply eat this cost, especially not on a $15k car, it would have to be passed on to the consumer, and its not. Sure, you could say that the Employee Discount for Everyone was a loss leader, but GM has switched its marketing tact to the "Total Value Promise" which means less rebates but lower prices, in the end the prices even over the long term are *NOT* rising by the amount that would be required if energy was really that much of the cost.

That's a tough one. Consider what will happen to the 97 Civic if you buy a TDI/Prius? It's probably still got life left in it, so it could be sold to someone else who would continue to use as you are now. If the Civic wasn't available on the used car market it could cause someone else to buy a new car or to drive a less environmentally concious vehicle. So buying a new car doesn't neccessarily mean that you are hurting the environment so long as the Civic is used to retire a less clean vehicle -- in fact, it may be a twofer.

I don't know if it's true or not, but the flaw in your reasoning is equating "dollar value of gasoline used" with "energy used." It takes vast quantities of energy to make steel and aluminum out of ore, to make plastic out of oil, to make glass out of sand. If you compare units of energy -- as in units of power like Watts, say -- I don't find it far-fetched at all to think that a car may never use as much energy as it took to build it.

It's not just the building, it's that recycling old cars costs more than building them in the first place for a lot of parts.