# gas price vs diesel



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Yep, it's winter and lots of folks are heating with oil. 

Where I am the price differential is 35.2 cents. 

Check back in summer when supply and demand change for both gasoline and diesel. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

Here in N. Iowa, we have the same 3.09 for gas, but 3.69-3.79 for diesel. If you want non-ethanol gas (my Jeep needs this) it's 3.35 or plus/premium gas (1.4L Cruze) is almost as much as the Diesel at 3.59. 

What I'm not thrilled about is Propane (for home heating, since Natural Gas is not available here) at upwards of $4.40 a gallon. I'm doing everything I can to cut my usage until the price comes down, so I can avoid filling my 500 gallon tank at those prices.


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

From what was reading it's because a few "diesel" refinerys were closed down for extended time for repairs


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

87 Gas 3.45 diesel 4.45 here


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Yes seeing up to $1 difference around here that popped up recently. Pretty big discrepancy in prices at different stations. I have seen diesel at anywhere from $3.88 to $4.69.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

mr overkill said:


> From what was reading it's because a few "diesel" refineries were closed down for extended time for repairs


How convenient, right during the highest demand season for distillates (diesel, heating oil, etc.); just like how they decided to shut down _the_ primary pipeline for propane for "maintenance" just in time for the coldest part of the year driving propane prices to almost triple the normal price in many cases. Either there is collusion to drive up the prices or someone really ****** up when it came to scheduling maintenance.

Back on topic, the gas/diesel delta here has been stuck right around $.60-.70 for a couple of months now. Gas isn't spiking like it did this time last year.


----------



## Scott M. (Apr 23, 2013)

$1.00 difference in New Jersey. This and the additional cost of the car are why diesels will never catch on here in the states.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

3.40s for 87. 4.40s for diesel. Wholesale spread is only about 25-35 cents. Hopefully that gets to the pump this lifetime.


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Diesel running $1/gal more than 87 octane in my area currently.
Truck took $100 and didn't click off.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

revjpeterson said:


> Here in N. Iowa, we have the same 3.09 for gas, but 3.69-3.79 for diesel. If you want non-ethanol gas (my Jeep needs this) it's 3.35 or plus/premium gas (1.4L Cruze) is almost as much as the Diesel at 3.59.
> 
> What I'm not thrilled about is Propane (for home heating, since Natural Gas is not available here) at upwards of $4.40 a gallon. I'm doing everything I can to cut my usage until the price comes down, so I can avoid filling my 500 gallon tank at those prices.


That's about the same as it is here in Des Moines. Diesel was $3.65, Premium was $3.46, non Ethanol 87 was in the $3.3x range and finally $3.15-3.20 for E10. We don't run E10 in anything because the savings doesn't make up for the decrease in mileage. Seems that people in States without the ethanol subsidies definitely have bigger delta between gas and diesel to think about.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

DrKlahn said:


> We don't run E10 in anything because the savings doesn't make up for the decrease in mileage.


Lucky you. Here in Minnesota, we don't have anything but E10 unless you buy the extremely expensive non-oxygenated premium gas. Fortunately, there's an abundance of that because there are so many boats here. The bad part is, it is usually at least $.50/gal more than 87 E10 and often at least $.15-20/gal more than 91 E10, and it is technically not legal to use in road vehicles here other than classic cars and motorcycles. I've talked to motorcyclists in parts of the country where there aren't many boats where they have to drive 25+ miles to find a station that carries E0 of any grade.

I'm dreading the day they try to push E15 on us. There is already rumblings about it here in MN. I refuse to buy that stuff.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

They are making the same pitch for E15 here. I can see a day when it is pretty much impossible to find non ethanol around here, although I hope there is at least a premium grade available without it. We end up with premium (non ethanol) in our Pontiac G8 even though it could get away with 89. It will average 24-26 on a tank with non ethanol 91 premium. It's about 20 on E10. Her Terrain seems happy to run 87 non ethanol. It's surprising more people haven't figured out that ethanol doesn't usually result in a savings. On small air cooled motors it can even be harmful.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

DrKlahn said:


> That's about the same as it is here in Des Moines. Diesel was $3.65, Premium was $3.46, non Ethanol 87 was in the $3.3x range and finally $3.15-3.20 for E10. We don't run E10 in anything because the savings doesn't make up for the decrease in mileage. Seems that people in States without the ethanol subsidies definitely have bigger delta between gas and diesel to think about.


The Jeep doesn't get any Ethanol, mostly because I sometimes go 8-10 weeks on a tank, which means that I also can't drive any farther than about 150 miles into Minnesota with it, because I wouldn't be able to fill without using Ethanol. I haven't figured what the cost difference (cost per gallon vs. fuel economy) has to be to break even on the Jeep, but I know it hates ethanol - runs poorly, terrible fuel mileage, etc.

I used to run E0 in the wife's van too, but when they changed the blends and as a result the costs, I switched it over to the E10. It used to be E10 - 89 and E0 - 87 in this part of the state and a dime cost difference. Now both E10 and E0 are both 87, but the cost difference went way up. I figured the break-even point for that vehicle was at about 15 cents/gal. and with the cost difference between E0 and E10 now hovering at 20-30 cents/gal. in this part of the state, the math said it was time to switch it to E10. 

I also try to keep anything higher than B2 bio-diesel out of the Cruze, but since i can get all the way to Duluth and back to Iowa in the Diesel, with fuel to spare, Minnesota's summertime B15 fuel doesn't have to become a concern for me.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

You're van must do pretty well on E10. Even on premium the G8 ends up about $2 cheaper per fill on premium. The Cobalt SS (supercharged) I replaced with the Cruze TD took the least hit, but was not happy running on ethanol. Once we get to the summer I ought to have her try out E10 in her Terrain just to see if it is a savings. Everything is getting terrible mileage with the crazy cold we've seen this winter, so trying it now wouldn't give us a good comparison. Heck the Cruze struggled to hit 35mpg this morning on my commute. The Terrain has been in the mid to upper teens.


----------



## TD_Cruze (Jan 15, 2014)

87 Octane - $3.49
Diesel - $4.19


----------



## TD_Cruze (Jan 15, 2014)

87 octane - $3.36
Diesel - $4.29


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

Are federal mpg standards based on E10 or pure gasoline? 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## DieselMan33 (Oct 13, 2013)

Ahhh the time of year when the difference between gas and diesel reaches its peak and the comment flow in: "You mad you paid so much more for that diesel car when diesel is like a $1 more", "Why would you buy a diesel when it is so much more then gas", "Diesel is so expensive". I am to the point where I don't even explain the benefits of the CTD to people anymore.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Yep. You pretty much have to drive one to get it. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

DieselMan33 said:


> Ahhh the time of year when the difference between gas and diesel reaches its peak and the comment flow in: "You mad you paid so much more for that diesel car when diesel is like a $1 more", "Why would you buy a diesel when it is so much more then gas", "Diesel is so expensive". I am to the point where I don't even explain the benefits of the CTD to people anymore.


Yeah, but I still remember buying Diesel for $0.20-0.30/gal less than 87 octane.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

DrKlahn said:


> They are making the same pitch for E15 here. I can see a day when it is pretty much impossible to find non ethanol around here, although I hope there is at least a premium grade available without it.


Since small engines(boats and lawn mowers) can not run on ethanol gas I think there will always be no ethanol gas available but at a price premium. 

From my testing My cruze gets 1-4mpg better with no ethanol gas than with E10 fuel. I have been running E15 in my cruze since last fall and get the exact same MPG as I would with E10 gas. E15 is typically 10 cents less than 87E10, its either 88 octane or 90 octane depending on what fuel they start with(84 or 87 octane clear gas, E0). 

My car runs great on E15 and since I have been averaging $3.19 a gallon vs $3.79 for premium, my cost per mile is as good now as mid summer when I get 8-10mpg better. Can't wait to see how low I can get my cost per mile on E15 this summer. 

Back on topic, diesel is always slightly more expensive than premium gas around here, has been that way for 10+ years. Only time thats not true is when gas gets close to $4 a gallon(for 87 octane regular). Gasoline averages $3.35 for 87 and diesel is usually around $4.


----------



## Danny5 (Dec 22, 2011)

So since I bought my Diesel in October, the price of Diesel has remained constant at 3.59. Unleaded has gone from 2.99 to 3.26. I am crossing my fingers that this summer price drop you all are talking about comes to Phoenix as well


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Danny5 said:


> So since I bought my Diesel in October, the price of Diesel has remained constant at 3.59.


:blink: I just paid $4.29 for some Diesel for my torpedo heater and it's 20-30 cents less than K1.


----------



## silvercruze1lt (Sep 28, 2012)

87 e10 is $4.94 and diesel is $5.25, why are you all complaining about the difference.


----------



## grs1961 (Oct 23, 2012)

I just paid AUS1.527 for a litre of distillate, standard unleaded is AUD1.597 per litre at the same servo.


----------



## Sperry (Aug 3, 2013)

Diesel is about 20 cents more / liter than regular around Toronto.. Another 4 - 6 weeks and the price should start dropping


----------



## Mikeske (Jun 19, 2012)

E10 is $3.16 a gallon 
Diesel is $3.71 a gallon where I fuel up my vehicles
All Gasoline in my area is now E10, no choice and no way to get straight gasoline. The last station changed last summer.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Mikeske said:


> All Gasoline in my area is now E10, no choice and no way to get straight gasoline. The last station changed last summer.


Might want to look around your area on the wesbite below, look s like Washington state has a ton of no ethanol gas available still. Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada


----------



## titanman2789 (Oct 27, 2013)

3.25 for regular gas. 3.65 for diesel here. Premium gas is at 3.57, slowly creeping up to be above diesel. If this trend continues, the naysayers will have to keep their mouths shut. They'll soon be paying the same price for regular gas hahahahaha

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Barefeet (Jan 1, 2014)

In Rochester NY, I was paying 3.96 for diesel two weeks ago, now it's 4.32, quite a jump. Regular gas is 3.59 to 3.62.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

$3.39 Reg grade $4.29 Diesel


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

With diesel prices as high as they are, what is everyone’s cost per mile with the diesel? almost seems impossible to get enough MPG improvement to make up that much extra cost. 

Just checking on fuelly.com my cost per mile for 37,000 miles is 10.7cents(average of $3.73 a gallon for gas). I'm buying much cheaper gas this year, averaging around $3.30 a gallon, so I expect my cost per mile to drop significantly.


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

spacedout said:


> almost seems impossible to get enough MPG improvement to make up that much extra cost.


It is not all about ROI.
If it is, then what is the pay back period for the RS package on your car?


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

As I have posted elsewhere (and I am sure many owners would agree with me) it is not just about the cost per mile. If you are worried about that, buy a used Toyota Yaris or something. The CTD is a wonderful car, and in my opinion worth every penny I paid for it. All due respect, of course


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Diesel Dan said:


> It is not all about ROI.
> If it is, then what is the pay back period for the RS package on your car?


^^^This!!!

In the whole gas vs. diesel debate I've been screaming this! If you're all about saving money, buy an LS with no options. Or better yet, buy a ten year old Corolla that still runs decent.

Anyway, back to the cost/mile, currently my diesel is running smack on $0.100/mile with the poor winter mileage and high diesel costs. That should come down in the summer when the mileage goes up and diesel is steady if not lower. My 2011 2LT averaged $0.110/mile over the life of the car.

I never expected to save money by buying a diesel, but I got an amazing car with way more power with the added benefit of being very efficient.


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

The cost per mile should not a buying point just a reference point to help make an educated decision cost per mile between ctd and the other car is a penny or less per mile but you have to factor drivers experience functionally and other factors


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Back to the price conversation;

Wholesale gasoline April contracts are up $0.10/gal the last few days and are up about $0.35/gal over March contracts. We should start seeing the gas/diesel delta start closing here in the next few weeks.

Here locally, gasoline has jumped $0.20/gal over the last week. Gas/diesel delta (#2 diesel) is down to $0.44 now with #2 diesel at $3.899 and gasoline at $3.459 and on its way up.

We still have one station in town selling diesel for $4.74. I have no idea where they get their fuel from as the next highest in town in $4.19 with most winter blends still about $4.09.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

PanJet said:


> Back to the price conversation;
> 
> Wholesale gasoline April contracts are up $0.10/gal the last few days and are up about $0.35/gal over March contracts. We should start seeing the gas/diesel delta start closing here in the next few weeks.
> 
> ...


Still seeing gas/diesel deltas almost $1.00 in some areas of PA, but the gap does seem to be closing. I have also seen deltas in diesel price as high as $.50 for stations within a few miles of each other.


----------



## Rivmage (May 8, 2013)

In Centennial, CO the prices are as follows Reg Gas (85) 3.15 Mid (87) 3.36 Premium (91) 3.46 and Diesel 3.69.


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

yup diesel here a month ago was 3.69 then in a matter of a week it jumped to 4.15


----------



## Rivmage (May 8, 2013)

Diesel is pretty stable around here, I guess it's due partly to us not using diesel to heat with during the winter. It was right around 3.69 last year, at one point is was cheaper then gas by 30 to 40 cents.

Scott


----------



## DieselMan33 (Oct 13, 2013)

Was $4.45 around here yesterday. I filled up for $4.15 today, gas is $3.45.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

It's a good thing we drive CTD's so we aren't hit quite as hard with the higher diesel prices! At least we can stretch a gallon pretty far on average.


----------



## titanman2789 (Oct 27, 2013)

diesel said:


> It's a good thing we drive CTD's so we aren't hit quite as hard with the higher diesel prices! At least we can stretch a gallon pretty far on average.


True. It would really suck to be driving in a 1 ton truck getting 13 mpg on diesel. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

titanman2789 said:


> True. It would really suck to be driving in a 1 ton truck getting 13 mpg on diesel.


Sure, rub it in.
16-18 MPG for my truck usually.

$3.39 for 87 and $4.48 for Diesel at the local BP the other day.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

The $1 gap seems to be holding firm in PA. Hopefully we see a reversal of this trend soon.


----------



## Diesel Dan (May 18, 2013)

Today;
87 octane, $3.59
Diesel, $4.49
Kerosene, $4.29

F'ing weird since K1 was $4.29 while Diesel was in the 3.80s range.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

Here in Iowa, we have seen gasoline jump 15 cents recently, and about a quarter on the month. Over that same period, diesel has added about a nickel, and a total of a dime over the month - showing much greater stability than gasoline.


----------



## 888 (Jan 14, 2014)

PanJet said:


> ^^^This!!!
> 
> In the whole gas vs. diesel debate I've been screaming this! If you're all about saving money, buy an LS with no options. Or better yet, buy a ten year old Corolla that still runs decent.
> 
> ...


Amen.


----------



## titanman2789 (Oct 27, 2013)

3.46 for regular and 3.79 for diesel here today. Figured I'd fill up my gasser truck before prices go up even more. Been going up 3-5 cents every day here for about 2 weeks now. Looks like $5/gallon gas might be here soon...

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Gas/Diesel delta is now down to $0.35 here for regular e10 vs. straight #2 diesel. Most premium gas is at or above diesel now. Diesel has gone up about $0.10 in the last month, probably due to heating fuel and the cold snaps, but gas has gone up about $0.30 in the same time frame and is still on its way up.

Winter blends (still what is mostly available around town) are still selling for $4.09, about $0.15 higher than straight #2, but we really are out of the woods as far as those go. Even here in northern Minnesota, our temps are mostly above freezing during the day now and might touch single digits at night. Having used straight #2 with PowerService all winter when it was below zero for days on end, I'm not worried at all about using straight #2 now.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

PanJet said:


> Gas/Diesel delta is now down to $0.35 here for regular e10 vs. straight #2 diesel. Most premium gas is at or above diesel now. Diesel has gone up about $0.10 in the last month, probably due to heating fuel and the cold snaps, but gas has gone up about $0.30 in the same time frame and is still on its way up.
> 
> Winter blends (still what is mostly available around town) are still selling for $4.09, about $0.15 higher than straight #2, but we really are out of the woods as far as those go. Even here in northern Minnesota, our temps are mostly above freezing during the day now and might touch single digits at night. Having used straight #2 with PowerService all winter when it was below zero for days on end, I'm not worried at all about using straight #2 now.


Similar pattern across the state line here in Iowa: Our Diesel went up a dime about a month ago, but most are now back down to $3.79 for regular #2 in my area, and $3.99 for the low-temp (-25--40) blends. Gas, on the other hand, is still averaging $3.45 for e10/87. e0/87 unleaded is within a dime of Diesel, and all 91+ octane premiums are demanding a higher cost than diesel. 89 octane (with or without ethanol) has pretty much disappeared with the new blending strategy, unless it's a station with more than 3 varieties per pump.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

revjpeterson said:


> Similar pattern across the state line here in Iowa: Our Diesel went up a dime about a month ago, but most are now back down to $3.79 for regular #2 in my area, and $3.99 for the low-temp (-25--40) blends. Gas, on the other hand, is still averaging $3.45 for e10/87. e0/87 unleaded is within a dime of Diesel, and all 91+ octane premiums are demanding a higher cost than diesel. 89 octane (with or without ethanol) has pretty much disappeared with the new blending strategy, unless it's a station with more than 3 varieties per pump.


3.50s/3.60s for 87. 4.40s still for winter blend. Some other factors involved but wholesale diesel for April is now below gasoline.

http://www.burlingtongasprices.com/index.aspx?fuel=D


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

What's this #2 diesel you speak of?


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

money_man said:


> What's this #2 diesel you speak of?


there are places you get a choice what diesel you want

#1 winter diesel
#2 rest of the yr

if i go to vancouver i can choose, northern bc where i live, theres no choice, theres just diesel and its ready for the temps...same with northern ab where i work

a guy living in vancouver can run #2 and be fine, but if he's driving up north from vancouver, he should run #1


----------



## oilburner (Jun 13, 2013)

price of diesel here in central Ontario has come down 5 cents a litre in a week. still 10 cents higher than gas. should keep falling as weather gets warmer.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I have seen diesel drop as much as 15 cents over the past few days while gas continues to rise, closing the gap


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

money_man said:


> What's this #2 diesel you speak of?


There are two general types of diesel fuel: #1 and #2.

#2 diesel is actually the standard, and most of the time in the summer, that's what you're getting even if it doesn't say. #1 diesel is thinner, more akin to kerosene, so it has a gel point much lower than #2 diesel. However, #1 is also more expensive, less efficient, and harder on your car's fuel system (less lubrication).

Straight, untreated #2 diesel can begin waxing and "gelling" at temps as high as 18 F, although you generally don't have to worry too much about it until you get down to below 5-10 F.

Winter fuel is often a blend of #1 and #2. There are some stations (at least in the U.S.) that will let you pick which type you want, but for the most part, #2 is the standard.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Hmm, that's good to know. I thought diesel was diesel


----------



## oilburner (Jun 13, 2013)

money_man said:


> Hmm, that's good to know. I thought diesel was diesel



nova Scotia is probably the same as Ontario ,you don`t get to choose .
or at least I have not seen any blend pumps


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Nope, all I see is just a plain diesel pump. I just found out one of our Shell's have the v-power diesel so I may try that


----------



## pro439 (Mar 14, 2014)

If you use premium gas and drive like you have diesel power it actually will cost more to drive.As far as fuel goes you should use a good fuel additive such as stanadine performance.


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

PanJet said:


> ^^^This!!!
> 
> In the whole gas vs. diesel debate I've been screaming this! If you're all about saving money, buy an LS with no options. Or better yet, buy a ten year old Corolla that still runs decent.
> 
> ...


Absolutely true and well said. 

If you buy diesel its for the power and the efficiency AKA being environmentally conscience. It is not to save money. You will never save money buying diesel over gas, at least not unless there is some huge advancement in tech that applies only to diesel. 

UK had an article the showed that even at 20 mpg gas to 60 mpg diesel in the first 5 years it was cheaper significantly cheaper to buy a gas engine. Also in regards to emissions, the have found that the accumulative emissions of diesel over say a year, factoring in the occasional burst of smog they emit puts the environmental gap much smaller than trotted in main stream media.

This all without doing NPV, ROI and FV calculations on money. With these you spend 10 - 15K more driving a diesel in the first 5 years and its will always cost you more than their gas counterpart on the same car. Getting a diesel is about a lot of things, but it is never about saving money. Same is true for the ECO version of the Cruze, you wont break even over its non-eco equivalent, but it may make you feel better. If you want a new car and want to save money, buy gas.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

Quazar said:


> Absolutely true and well said.
> 
> If you buy diesel its for the power and the efficiency AKA being environmentally conscience. It is not to save money. You will never save money buying diesel over gas, at least not unless there is some huge advancement in tech that applies only to diesel.
> 
> ...


Where do you get 10-15k? Even ignoring the cost benefits of diesel (resale, no ignition system to maintain) I wasn't able to get close to that number. Yeah you have a $2000 or $2500 premium on the cost, DEF, slightly more expensive oil changes (I think?), a fuel filter, but I don't see how these accumulate to 10-15k over 5 years. Maybe I'm missing something though.. I'm curious.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Quazar said:


> UK had an article the showed that even at 20 mpg gas to 60 mpg diesel in the first 5 years it was cheaper significantly cheaper to buy a gas engine.


Hmm. I'd be interested to read this article, but I'm just going to go out on a limb here say this is a very faulty calculation. 

Using the mileage numbers you gave, even if we had an extreme case of $1.50/gallon premium of diesel vs. gas, driving the average 15,000 miles/year would net you a fuel savings of $1,125/year with the diesel. If that was the case, the price premium of a diesel over a gas engine would be paid by fuel savings alone in about 2 years for the average driver.

Now, if you change those numbers to say the CTD vs. the Cruze Eco, (46 mpg vs 42 mpg, respectively) then even at a relatively modest price delta of $0.50/gallon, the Eco still wins out on fuel savings, so yes, in the real world, the diesel version doesn't save much, if anything, but the 60 mpg vs. 20 mpg number just doesn't add up.



Quazar said:


> This all without doing NPV, ROI and FV calculations on money. With these you spend 10 - 15K more driving a diesel in the first 5 years and its will always cost you more than their gas counterpart on the same car. Getting a diesel is about a lot of things, but it is never about saving money. Same is true for the ECO version of the Cruze, you wont break even over its non-eco equivalent, but it may make you feel better. If you want a new car and want to save money, buy gas.


Again, not to rag on you, but this isn't entirely true either. Sure, diesel costs more, but not $10-15k over 5 years more even factoring in FV. ROI is mostly irrelevant for a personal vehicle unless your income is directly related to driving. Also, don't forget the value of features when you're calculating NPV.

Just out of curiosity, I did a quick NPV calculation of gas vs. diesel Cruze. In order to factor out differences in features I compared the CTD (no extra options) to a 2LT automatic (no extra options) as they have the closest match in features of any two Cruze models. I used their EPA combined mileage numbers, and an assumed gas price of $3.50/gallon and diesel at $4.00/gallon and a yearly mileage of 15,000 miles. I also did not factor in any other costs (depreciation, insurance, maintenance, financing, etc.) as these are highly variable from person to person, but largely similar between the two cars. I also assumed both cars are sold at the end of 5 years for 35% of the original purchase price, which is an approximation, but it is in line somewhat. I also used a rather optimistic discount rate of 8%, which skews the favor towards the cheaper models a tiny bit.

Using those assumptions, the NPV of the 2LT automatic is -$22,782, and the diesel is -$24,164, a difference of only $2,009; still in favor of the 2LT gas, but not anywhere near $10-15k.

The bare bones LS manual comes out ahead of all models using these same assumptions, but only by ~$5,300 compared to the most expensive model (CTD), and beats out the ECO MT by $711 over five years using these assumptions.

Even the 1LT manual's NPV beats out the ECO MT over 5 years by about $113.


Okay, sorry for the long post. I was having too much fun with numbers.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Diesel Dan said:


> It is not all about ROI.
> If it is, then what is the pay back period for the RS package on your car?


 I wanted fog lights which were are included in the RS package, I also wanted them factory installed. Dealer installed lights were almost $400, over half the cost of the factory installed lights. 

Your not comparing apples to apples. The RS package does not claim to add MPG so of course it was never intended to save any money. The diesel however is intended to save money since most are buying it for that high mpg rating or at least with the intent that it saves money. The RS package was $795 in 2012, the diesel cost is $2400 over the standard 2LT... pretty sure which one is the more economical buy. 

Now back to the question, what is the cost per mile all you diesel guys are getting? From looking on fuelly.com it seems the best is around 9-11cents per mile, no better than most are getting with an ECO manual. My lifetime average over 40K is 10.7cents per mile with my 1LT auto cruze, however I should be below 10 cents per mile by this summer. 

I'm just not seeing any fuel savings to be had over a gas cruze and at a $5000+ premium over my 1LT.... Only advantage is more power, if that's what your buying for the verano or malibu 2.0T would be a better choice.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Quazar said:


> If you buy diesel its for the power and the efficiency AKA being environmentally conscience. It is not to save money. You will never save money buying diesel over gas, at least not unless there is some huge advancement in tech that applies only to diesel.


Environmentally speaking the Cruze diesel might be a clean diesel but puts out more emissions than the standard 1.4T cruze(comparing CO2 emissions). Only benefit to the cruze diesel is more power.


----------



## pro439 (Mar 14, 2014)

The only other thing w/a diesel is the engine is suppose to last longer,be more durable than a gas engine.The resale of said vehicle is also higher if you compare any brand that makes the same version in both gas and diesel


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

PanJet said:


> Hmm. I'd be interested to read this article, but I'm just going to go out on a limb here say this is a very faulty calculation.
> 
> Using the mileage numbers you gave, even if we had an extreme case of $1.50/gallon premium of diesel vs. gas, driving the average 15,000 miles/year would net you a fuel savings of $1,125/year with the diesel. If that was the case, the price premium of a diesel over a gas engine would be paid by fuel savings alone in about 2 years for the average driver.
> 
> ...


Without doing fuel calculations and all other things being equal.

2 guys go to purchase a car, They has 5000.00 cash and are approved for a 22,000 loan. They has the choice between 3 base models, LT1 and EcoMT and Diesel.

Guy 1 buys the Eco MT, wanting the efficiency, Guy 2 buys the diesel, wanting the same thing. The base cost of the cars is 5000.00 different. Guy 1 finances the complete cost of the car at 2.9%, Guy 2 puts the 5000 down and finances the rest. After 5 years guy 1 has paid only 30$ less in interest than guy 2. (Due to taxes and such guy 2 had to finance slightly more)

Guy 1 payment is 5$ a month less than guy 2. Guy 1 takes the 5,000 and give it to an investor at a average ROI of 12% (Which has been pretty easy to get for the last 3 years, I have averaged in the 17%), he also puts the 5$ a month into that investment for the next 5 years.

After 5 years guy 1 has 9500.00 more than guy 2. Now both guys drive 15000 miles a year for the next 5 years. The average difference between diesel and gas for the last 2 years has been $0.55 in favor of gas so we will use the numbers 3.45 for gas and 4.00 for diesel.

After 5 years, guy 1 has paid 930.00 less in gas than guy 2 has in diesel. 

Now if guy 1 takes the 15$ less a month he is spending in gas (Based on average fuel economy with 50/50 driving) than guy 2 and puts that into his investment fund after 5 years he has $10,730.00 more than guy 2. Calculating in 10% - 15% ROI compounded monthly, that range would be between 9788.00 and 12,330 after 5 years. 

15K was too high, I did the estimate in my head and used a higher ROI rate. But the fact is, its cheaper to drive gas, significantly so.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Quazar said:


> But the fact is, its cheaper to drive gas, significantly so.


Only if you are an expert investor with a math degree lol


----------



## grs1961 (Oct 23, 2012)

Quazar said:


> But the fact is, its cheaper to drive gas, significantly so.


No, it isn't.

98RON: 155.5 c/l
Diesel: 151.7 c/l


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

Quazar said:


> Without doing fuel calculations and all other things being equal.
> 
> 2 guys go to purchase a car, They has 5000.00 cash and are approved for a 22,000 loan. They has the choice between 3 base models, LT1 and EcoMT and Diesel.
> 
> ...


I'm still really not too convinced. I am pretty sure a similarly equipped gas version is only a 2000 or 2500 dollar difference. Second, this is assuming financing will happen. Third, this is assuming someone is going to invest the money properly at a very healthy return. The economy is rebounding.. average in the past 6 years instead of 3 and I bet you that ROI would be much much lower. Fourth, interest at 2.9% is pretty much the inflation rate so it is not a big consideration (for what it's worth I got 1.9% from a bank the dealer works with). Fifth, the value of the diesel should be more after 5 years than the gas counterpart. In my state, at least, registration is significantly cheaper for diesel than gas. Etc. etc.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

VtTD said:


> I am pretty sure a similarly equipped gas version is only a 2000 or 2500 dollar difference.


Comparing a 2LT with the 1.4T vs a 2LT diesel its right around that price difference. However in the example above he is comparing to the ECO. Your going to see the ECO used in 99% of the comparisons since most of the reason to buy the diesel is the supposed fuel savings over the gas engine and the ECO manual being the most efficient gas cruze. 

Dollar for dollar the Cruze ECO MT wins hands down, cheaper initial cost, Cheaper fuel and less maintenance costs. Cost per mile is identical for most(see fuelly.com for comparison) so no money to be saved from the slightly higher MPG in the diesel either. The only advantage of the diesel, more power. 

There is something to be said for the diesels power and ability to still get exceptional MPG, that power should be the only reason you buy the diesel though since it saves no money over the gas cruze when comparing cost per mile.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Quazar said:


> Without doing fuel calculations and all other things being equal.
> 
> 2 guys go to purchase a car, They has 5000.00 cash and are approved for a 22,000 loan. They has the choice between 3 base models, LT1 and EcoMT and Diesel.
> 
> ...


Okay, I'll give you some of that. I did not factor in investing the difference.

However, this is still flawed because it does not factor out the cost of features. Yes, if someone is looking solely for mileage, they are likely going to look at the EcoMT or the Diesel, but to say this is a fair comparison of diesel vs. gas is not entirely accurate as half of the $5,000 difference between the EcoMT and the diesel can be attributed to features. That is why I used the 2LT as a comparison. If we do that, you need to cut your upfront cash saved in half.

Also, while it is not huge, I factored in the cost of selling the cars at the end of five years as the diesel will draw more resale value.

If you factor in those variables, your number comes down quite a bit. Granted, that is not a perfect comparison because the 2LT is not the mileage champ of the gas Cruze, but it does a better comparison of true diesel vs. gas by factoring out a lot of the cost differences that are not attributed to the diesel feature (automatic transmission, leather, heated seats, 4-wheel discs, etc.).

I was never arguing that diesel is cheaper than gas; in fact I've been one of the primary advocates on here saying it is not (you even quoted me doing so), but it is not as drastic of a difference as you are making it.


Okay, I'm sorry we drug this off topic again. It's partially my fault. Let's keep this thread for fuel delta and not make yet another gas vs. diesel debate.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Comparing a 2LT with the 1.4T vs a 2LT diesel its right around that price difference. However in the example above he is comparing to the ECO. Your going to see the ECO used in 99% of the comparisons since most of the reason to buy the diesel is the supposed fuel savings over the gas engine and the ECO manual being the most efficient gas cruze.
> 
> Dollar for dollar the Cruze ECO MT wins hands down, cheaper initial cost, Cheaper fuel and less maintenance costs. Cost per mile is identical for most(see fuelly.com for comparison) so no money to be saved from the slightly higher MPG in the diesel either. The only advantage of the diesel, more power.
> 
> There is something to be said for the diesels power and ability to still get exceptional MPG, that power should be the only reason you buy the diesel though since it saves no money over the gas cruze when comparing cost per mile.


Yeah, I agree if you are looking at fuel efficiency then if you want to look at just the Cruze, you can really only compare the ECO to the Diesel and the ECO wins. Thats not a fair comparison though because they are really two different cars equipped with a different powertrain and interior (using the base that was used for the ECO). Doing this kind of comparison, you may as well compare the Cruze diesel to a Geo Metro from 1990 whenever. The Geo is cheaper :biggrin:


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

diesel said:


> Only if you are an expert investor with a math degree lol


This made me laugh. I wanted to point out that this doesn't just apply to investing. If guy 1 was to pay off credit card debt/loans with the extra money the outcome would be similar. Putting the 5K as a extra payment on a mortgage (200k/30yr) will save you 7 - 16K in interest.

FYI, this is why I don't do these calculations before I buy something I want, unless the reason is efficiency/savings. Then I do it and never like the results.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

VtTD said:


> Yeah, I agree if you are looking at fuel efficiency then if you want to look at just the Cruze, you can really only compare the ECO to the Diesel and the ECO wins. Thats not a fair comparison though because they are really two different cars equipped with a different powertrain and interior (using the base that was used for the ECO). Doing this kind of comparison, you may as well compare the Cruze diesel to a Geo Metro from 1990 whenever. The Geo is cheaper :biggrin:


There is really not that much gained jumping from a ECO to a 2LT, have you compared them? Not really a cruze to geo metro comparison

Diesel extras over the ECO MT(anything not mentioned is available as an option on the ECO):

Sport tuned suspension, rear disc, z-link
leather, heated seats


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Comparing a 2LT with the 1.4T vs a 2LT diesel its right around that price difference. However in the example above he is comparing to the ECO. Your going to see the ECO used in 99% of the comparisons since most of the reason to buy the diesel is the supposed fuel savings over the gas engine and the ECO manual being the most efficient gas cruze.
> 
> Dollar for dollar the Cruze ECO MT wins hands down, cheaper initial cost, Cheaper fuel and less maintenance costs. Cost per mile is identical for most(see fuelly.com for comparison) so no money to be saved from the slightly higher MPG in the diesel either. The only advantage of the diesel, more power.
> 
> There is something to be said for the diesels power and ability to still get exceptional MPG, that power should be the only reason you buy the diesel though since it saves no money over the gas cruze when comparing cost per mile.


Spaced, I'm with you on the last paragraph. That has been my battle cry for the folks who poo-poo the diesel based on cost alone. 

However, in your first paragraph, I have to disagree; the diesel vs. the EcoMT is a very flawed comparison if one is trying to compare the true cost of owning a diesel vs. owning a gas. That's like comparing a half-ton bare bones gasoline work truck to a GMC Sierra Denali HD Duramax and saying that it costs more to own a diesel.

Okay, that's an extreme comparison, but you get the idea. If you want a true comparison of diesel vs. gas, it has to be the 2LT. If you're going for cheapest cost per mile (while still owning a Cruze), the LS beats every other model. The _only_ thing the EcoMT wins out at is best mileage.


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

The moral of this thread is:

If people want something and want to believe their justification for wanting it, do data in the world will convince them otherwise. 

Yes you can argue 94 octane or 98, but those are preferences and not needed to obtain cost efficient returns. You can argue the investment won't happen, or the person will not pay off debt. You can make the scenario fit what you want to generate results that support your argument. 

Don't invest, but add the money to your 401k, pay off credit card debt, pay more on your mortgage. However you choose to handle it, in the end you will have more money if you purchased gas if you chose to do anything with your money.

If you care to compare different cars, the Prius will give you more efficiency for the same cost as diesel. 

Diesel is great if you want a diesel, but not if you want to spend less in 5 years of ownership. If you didn't know this before you bought a diesel you do now.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

spacedout said:


> There is really not that much gained jumping from a ECO to a 2LT, have you compared them? Not really a cruze to geo metro comparison
> 
> Diesel extras over the ECO MT(anything not mentioned is available as an option on the ECO):
> 
> ...


Nah, I have not done any in-person comparison on the interior of the two cars. The only point I am trying to make is that whatever the reasoning is doesn't really matter. If one guy is going to sell you car A that is equipped differently on the inside than car B then there is going to be a price difference for that reason alone and that has to be taken into account when doing the comparison of engines or else it's apples and oranges. Doesn't matter if it's two Cruze diesels, one with the convenience package and one without or it's a Cruze ECO vs. a Mack truck.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

Quazar said:


> The moral of this thread is:
> 
> If people want something and want to believe their justification for wanting it, do data in the world will convince them otherwise.
> .


Bingo! That should be every politicians motto.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

PanJet said:


> Spaced, I'm with you on the last paragraph. That has been my battle cry for the folks who poo-poo the diesel based on cost alone.
> 
> However, in your first paragraph, I have to disagree; the diesel vs. the EcoMT is a very flawed comparison if one is trying to compare the true cost of owning a diesel vs. owning a gas. That's like comparing a half-ton bare bones gasoline work truck to a GMC Sierra Denali HD Duramax and saying that it costs more to own a diesel.
> 
> Okay, that's an extreme comparison, but you get the idea. If you want a true comparison of diesel vs. gas, it has to be the 2LT. If you're going for cheapest cost per mile (while still owning a Cruze), the LS beats every other model. The _only_ thing the EcoMT wins out at is best mileage.


As I already pointed out there is not that much difference between the ECO MT and diesel, only sport tuned suspension, rear disc brakes, zlink and leather/heated seats. You make it sound like I am comparing the cruze diesel to a sonic, I am comparing two cruze models that are identical in all features except those mentioned. I agree though for comparison sake one should use the 2LT so the features are exactly the same. 

BTW the LS cruze is not the most cost wise cruze, that would be the 1LT, the difference in MPG pays for itself(1LT is $1300 more initial cost). MPG wise the comparing the two, 1LT auto 26city/38highway/30combined LS auto 22city/35highway/27combined, a large enough difference to make up the higher car payment every month. 

I have never seen a LS cruze with a fuel cost per mile as low as I'm at with my 1LT or as low as an ECO or diesel owner for that matter.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

spacedout said:


> As I already pointed out there is not that much difference between the ECO MT and diesel, only sport tuned suspension, rear disc brakes, zlink and leather/heated seats. You make it sound like I am comparing the cruze diesel to a sonic, I am comparing two cruze models that are identical in all features except those mentioned. I agree though for comparison sake one should use the 2LT so the features are exactly the same.
> 
> BTW the LS cruze is not the most cost wise cruze, that would be the 1LT, the difference in MPG pays for itself(1LT is $1300 more initial cost). MPG wise the comparing the two, 1LT auto 26city/38highway/30combined LS auto 22city/35highway/27combined, a large enough difference to make up the higher car payment every month.
> 
> I have never seen a LS cruze with a fuel cost per mile as low as I'm at with my 1LT or as low as an ECO or diesel owner for that matter.


And... one has a manual transmission and one has an automatic transmission.


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

Even purchasing a 2LT, after 75000 miles based on average annual fuel cost disparity the Diesel is only ~$250.00 less in fuel cost. You don't start to savings until your 5th year. Ignoring all other aspects I am almost positive that the maintenance cost on the 2.0 on 75000 miles is more, probably enough to eat the difference. 

No matter how you cut it, in the end your buying a diesel for the desire to own one. There is no POO-POO on the diesel desire as someone tried to state earlier, there is simply correction to idea that you save money purchasing a diesel. You can accept it cost more or for those uncomfortable with this notion accept it saved you nothing for a higher up front cost.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Quazar said:


> Even purchasing a 2LT, after 75000 miles based on average annual fuel cost disparity the Diesel is only ~$250.00 less in fuel cost. You don't start to savings until your 5th year. Ignoring all other aspects I am almost positive that the maintenance cost on the 2.0 on 75000 miles is more, probably enough to eat the difference.
> 
> No matter how you cut it, in the end your buying a diesel for the desire to own one. There is no POO-POO on the diesel desire as someone tried to state earlier, there is simply correction to idea that you save money purchasing a diesel. You can accept it cost more or for those uncomfortable with this notion accept it saved you nothing for a higher up front cost.


Quazar, since judging by the context of your comments I'm fairly sure they're directed at me, are you even reading my posts? Have you read any number of the gas vs. diesel debates on here (they've somewhat quieted down since last fall)?

1) I have never once said buying the diesel will save you money, regardless of which model. I have always said the opposite, in fact. Read every post I've ever made and you'll see that's true.

2) There _has been_ a lot of poo-pooing on the diesel by the gas crowd. Many seem to forget about why we want diesels which is largely the problem. Read some of the old debates from last summer/fall. There are a ton of folks out there who say buying the diesel is stupid because the cost of fuel and buying the car in the first place outweighs the fuel savings as if we believe we're saving money buy buying the diesel. This type of talk mostly comes from some misguided Eco MT fanboys who think the Eco MT is the end-all be-all of economy cars.

3) Carrying on from #2, I have always said comparing the diesel to the Eco MT as an example of what it costs to own/operate a gas vs. a diesel car is a horrible comparison because they aren't comparable cars. So they both get great mileage and wear the name Cruze. That's about where the comparison ends. They say that us diesel guys are paying a $5,000 premium to get a diesel car, which is comparing apples to oranges because at least half of that $5,000 can be attributed to features. This is why I push the 2LT (auto trans) comparison because it eliminates as many variables as possible if one wants to get a true apples to apples comparison of gas vs. diesel.



Quazar said:


> No matter how you cut it, in the end your buying a diesel for the desire to own one... You can accept it cost more or for those uncomfortable with this notion accept it saved you nothing for a higher up front cost.


I don't know that any of us diesel owners have ever claimed anything other than this, and yet we still get comments on a regular basis telling us how much cheaper it is for an Eco MT as if we all thought we were saving a boatload by owning a diesel and none of us thought of anything except that magical 46 mpg highway number.

Great, so you own an Eco MT and pay pennies/mile for fuel. Did you know the LS guys saved thousands more than the Eco MT guys up front, and the Eco MT will never make up the difference? Perhaps the Eco MT is just a waste of money that makes you feel good because you get 42 mpg the same as the diesel is a waste of money that makes us feel good because we get 46 mpg. Or, maybe it is because the Eco MT guys wanted more than the LS had to offer, and at the same time they get amazing mileage! Buying the diesel is no different. We get things the Eco MT (or any gas Cruze for that matter) cannot offer, and at the same time we get even better mileage even if in the long run it costs more. Somehow it is okay to spend more on the Eco MT than the base model to get more features and great mileage, but we judge the diesel on a different metric because it runs on diesel so therefore it needs to save more money than the Eco MT in order to be worthy?

When I bought my diesel Cruze I owned a 2011 2LT Cruze which got 24city/36hwy/28combined IIRC. I never wanted an Eco at all because I wanted leather, heated seats, and some other features not available on the Eco. When I was interested in the diesel, my wants (not needs) were:

1)More power
2)At least all the same features I had on my 2LT
3)Still good if not better mileage
4)Reasonable purchase price

Using #1 and #2 alone, I was left with the Cruze diesel or a Verano Turbo if I wanted to stay in the same area of cars. The Eco MT isn't even a consideration given those wants. I'd have sooner kept my 2LT. #3 and #4 cut out the Verano Turbo. Therefore, my CTD is an awesome deal because I get a car that costs less than a Verano Turbo, has most of the great features and amenities that I want, has lots of power, and gets amazing mileage to boot! 

I, nor would I assume have most or all of the other diesel owners on here, have never had any illusions that I was saving money vs. a gasoline Cruze. If I was all about saving money, I would have purchased a 10-year old Corolla.

Quazar, you and I are dancing around the same argument. I think what many of us diesel owners get frustrated with is the idea that some of the gas crowd thinks we're only out to save money and feels the need to inform us that we're not while failing to understand why we bought the diesel the same as they bought the Eco MT vs the LS. We know we're not saving money ultimately, and we're okay with that. We got a more powerful car that gets great mileage.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

This argument can go on and on but at the end of the day we can all agree that a 5 year cost of ownership is probably a moot point, it's a GM product and probably won't make it 5 years anyways. Bam!

Just kidding.. hopefully they learned their lesson by now.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

Quazar said:


> Even purchasing a 2LT, after 75000 miles based on average annual fuel cost disparity the Diesel is only ~$250.00 less in fuel cost. You don't start to savings until your 5th year. Ignoring all other aspects I am almost positive that the maintenance cost on the 2.0 on 75000 miles is more, probably enough to eat the difference.
> 
> No matter how you cut it, in the end your buying a diesel for the desire to own one. There is no POO-POO on the diesel desire as someone tried to state earlier, there is simply correction to idea that you save money purchasing a diesel. You can accept it cost more or for those uncomfortable with this notion accept it saved you nothing for a higher up front cost.


Well I don't agree with the assumption that the diesel powertrain will cost significantly more to maintain. Time will tell I guess. If you want to worry about powertrain costs look at the potential issues a hybrid, like the Prius, could potentially have. A battery or motor repair would likely negate any efficiency gains and then some. And you have a conventional ICE powertrain to worry about too.

Fuel costs will vary depending on where you are. Here you must pay a premium to avoid an ethanol mix making 87 octane about $3.50/gal right now. Diesel is at $3.65/gal. Ethanol has not, in my experience, returned the savings per gallon mileage wise so I'm not factoring it in. So the fuel savings are a bit more in the diesel's favor in this region. Still it won't be huge compared to the Eco. Just under $300 if you use their respective EPA hwy numbers out to 75k miles at current prices.

I went with the diesel over the Eco for a few reasons. I needed an auto (my wife won't drive a stick) and the Eco takes a bit of a hit with an auto. Diesels powertrain wise are usually very resilient. The State government continues to push more and more ethanol at the consumer. It may not be possible in the near future to purchase a non-ethanol blend. E10 takes a significant economy hit in every car I have used it in, the proposed e15 will only make it worse. So the possibility of mandatory E10/E15 in my commuter was a factor. E10 is usually a 12-15% hit, E15 would obviously be worse. Premium may escape being a blend, but then your fuel costs start to be more of a factor (it's usually about the same as diesel). 

There's not a simple answer. In my case a manual wasn't an option, so the mileage was more of a factor. I bought my example used (5500 miles) and the premium wasn't a lot compared to the used Eco's with comparable mileage/options. I'll be happy with any savings at the pump. I'm keeping myself isolated from a possible ethanol mandate with the car put the most miles on.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

spacedout said:


> As I already pointed out there is not that much difference between the ECO MT and diesel, only sport tuned suspension, rear disc brakes, zlink and leather/heated seats. You make it sound like I am comparing the cruze diesel to a sonic, I am comparing two cruze models that are identical in all features except those mentioned. I agree though for comparison sake one should use the 2LT so the features are exactly the same.
> 
> BTW the LS cruze is not the most cost wise cruze, that would be the 1LT, the difference in MPG pays for itself(1LT is $1300 more initial cost). MPG wise the comparing the two, 1LT auto 26city/38highway/30combined LS auto 22city/35highway/27combined, a large enough difference to make up the higher car payment every month.
> 
> I have never seen a LS cruze with a fuel cost per mile as low as I'm at with my 1LT or as low as an ECO or diesel owner for that matter.


sunroof


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

PanJet said:


> 1. Quazar, since judging by the context of your comments I'm fairly sure they're directed at me.
> 
> 2. I don't know that any of us diesel owners have ever claimed anything other than this, and yet we still get comments on a regular basis telling us how much cheaper it is for an Eco MT
> 
> ...


 I respond to clarify:

1. Was not directed at you personally, the poopoo comment was in response to the general tone from multiple people. Yes I read your posts and don't disagree with a lot of what you said. Sorry it seemed personal. 

2. I disagree, I think a lot have, even on this thread. Thus my post to begin with. 

3. I agree, however, see 4 as to why I chose it.

5. Most likely, in the end its all about getting the car you want. Why else trade sell a 2011 to get a 2014 of the same car. 

4. For kicks a giggles and why I got the MT Eco

1)More power - MT Eco Wins, faster 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times. 
2)At least all the same features I had on my 2LT - Diesel
3)Still good if not better mileage - Eco Wins, if factoring cost for similar options
4)Reasonable purchase price - Eco Wins

Ultimately I did the same thing you did a couple weeks ago for some similar reasons but ended up with a Malibu. I wanted a AT, was tired of shifting in the winter and it bothered my knee. I wanted heated seats which means I had to have leather. Finally I decided I wanted more power and more back seat room which booted me into another class of car and blew the MPG desire out the window.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Quazar said:


> Was not directed at you personally, the poopoo comment was in response to the general tone from multiple people. Yes I read your posts and don't disagree with a lot of what you said. Sorry it seemed personal.


I didn't take it personal; just felt you were misunderstanding what I was saying.



Quazar said:


> Most likely, in the end its all about getting the car you want. Why else trade sell a 2011 to get a 2014 of the same car.


Exactly. Otherwise I wouldn't have traded my '11 or I would have gotten a Malibu, same as you.



Quazar said:


> More power - MT Eco Wins, faster 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times.


Maybe so, but I'm not interested in drag races. Load it up with two or three adults and stuff in the trunk and try to pass me on the highway.


----------



## Erastimus (Feb 9, 2012)

The overall issue in a nutshell is that European refineries were built with larger cuts of diesel in mind than gasoline. The opposite was true in the U.S. Generally speaking, the European refineries employed hydrotreating processes to crack crude oil while the U.S. refineries employed hydrocracking (fluid catalytic cracking - FCC). And again, FCC favors production of gasoline over diesel. U.S refineries are investing huge sums of money in both hydrotreating units and desulfurization units to produce additional ultra low sulphur diesel. Within 5 years, the price of gasoline and diesel will be very close to each other. These processes are extremely complex and very dangerous to control and keep everything in the equipment. To get a feel for just how many options and technologies there are for petroleum refining and why it takes a very difficult 4 year curriculum to become a chemical engineer or a petroleum engineer, scan through this document. http://www.cheresour...gy-of-cracking/


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

boraz said:


> sunroof


Not standard.. unfortunately.


----------



## oilburner (Jun 13, 2013)

this thread sure changed gears!


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

Yea reverse then boost


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

Erastimus said:


> The overall issue in a nutshell is that European refineries were built with larger cuts of diesel in mind than gasoline. The opposite was true in the U.S. Generally speaking, the European refineries employed hydrotreating processes to crack crude oil while the U.S. refineries employed hydrocracking (fluid catalytic cracking - FCC). And again, FCC favors production of gasoline over diesel. U.S refineries are investing huge sums of money in both hydrotreating units and desulfurization units to produce additional ultra low sulphur diesel. Within 5 years, the price of gasoline and diesel will be very close to each other. These processes are extremely complex and very dangerous to control and keep everything in the equipment. To get a feel for just how many options and technologies there are for petroleum refining and why it takes a very difficult 4 year curriculum to become a chemical engineer or a petroleum engineer, scan through this document. http://www.cheresour...gy-of-cracking/


You hit it on the head. Every ******* I hear complaining about diesel goes straight to the tax argument. WRONG.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

revjpeterson said:


> Here in N. Iowa, we have the same 3.09 for gas, but 3.69-3.79 for diesel. If you want non-ethanol gas (my Jeep needs this) it's 3.35 or plus/premium gas (1.4L Cruze) is almost as much as the Diesel at 3.59.
> 
> What I'm not thrilled about is Propane (for home heating, since Natural Gas is not available here) at upwards of $4.40 a gallon. I'm doing everything I can to cut my usage until the price comes down, so I can avoid filling my 500 gallon tank at those prices.


This fact really puzzles me. I thought propane was the cheapest form of fuel anywhere and yet, you see what it sells for as you've noted.



PanJet said:


> I didn't take it personal; just felt you were misunderstanding what I was saying.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not that it's the world's authority on acceleration statistics, but comparisons at the "Zero to Sixty" site show the CTD to be the fastest Cruze. Dragtimes does not list a Cruze, but I'm going to fix that. 

I am going to take mine to test and tune at Memphis International Raceway when weather permits and come back with a report. When I go, I will announce it on this forum a few days or a week in advance so other brave souls can join me. We can line them up side-by-side and test the various theories. If you go, be prepared to get laughed at...big time by the crowd because of the slow times, but that's ok. If it were possible, I would take my Vette too and see who gets the last laugh!


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

ParisTNDude said:


> This fact really puzzles me. I thought propane was the cheapest form of fuel anywhere and yet, you see what it sells for as you've noted.


This year was a total fluke for propane. Last winter I don't think it broke $2.00/gallon, and this year it briefly peaked at around $5.00/gallon in some areas due to a sudden and severe "shortage" caused by people shutting down a major pipeline for "maintenance" just in time for the coldest winter in 35 years.

Here is it back down to $2.19/gallon now, which is still close to it's highs for the last 5 years aside from this winter.


----------



## Quazar (Apr 28, 2011)

ParisTNDude said:


> This fact really puzzles me. I thought propane was the cheapest form of fuel anywhere and yet, you see what it sells for as you've noted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco (Manual) 0-60 mph 7.9 Quarter Mile 16.1 






 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel (Auto) 0-60 mph 8.2 Quarter Mile 16.6



Not sure what site you were reading but that is straight off 0-60.

In regards to Europe, at least in the UK there has been a big push to correct the myth even there that diesel is cheaper. In the UK the most recent articles (That I have read) have all supported Diesel is a low carbon footprint, gas is cheaper to drive. Diesel is .30 (USD) more in UK than gas, and while this may seem closer, they drive on average 6,000 miles less per year than us.


----------



## plasticplant (Mar 26, 2013)

$3.89 (unleaded 87), $4.09 (mid), $4.29 (premium) $3.99 (diesel) here in NE IL.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

$3.51 diesel and $3.18 at the place I usually fill up. It is the cheapest diesel in the county. Well the Dodge Chicken store is $3.49 but I figure they dump used chicken fryer grease in the tank.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

We just turned 8,000 miles. Price has ranged from 3.93 to 4.15. It is running 60-65 cents / gallon over regular in MA and NH.

Are big truck stops like Pilot cheaper?


----------



## Boog8302 (Sep 6, 2013)

Diesel around my area of Ohio is still around $4.49 and gas is around $3.51 depending on the stations. I cant wait for the price to come back down...if it does.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Wow, huge differences in different regions


----------



## Zenturi (Jan 25, 2014)

The South Carolina border isn't too far from where I live, so I head there and get it in the $3.69 to $3.74 range right now. It's about 55 to 60 cents more than regular unleaded.

I guess 9 cents a mile on diesel isn't too shabby nowadays. But I still remember 3 cents a mile back in the 1990s on regular gas in my Mazda Protege. Even back then, I thought being able to drive across the country for $100 (slept nights in my car) was a pretty good deal.


----------



## titanman2789 (Oct 27, 2013)

Diesel is only 25-30 cents more than regular where I live right now. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## kmacleod (Oct 15, 2010)

$3.75 for Regular, $3.98 for Diesel where I live.

Ken


----------



## DieselMan33 (Oct 13, 2013)

Filled up for $3.95 and gas was $3.71


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Yes, the gap is closing.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

i thought less than half of gas cruzers are using regular, yet most everyone talks aboot the price difference between regular and diesel


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

I hate the pricing gaps here.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

boraz said:


> i thought less than half of gas cruzers are using regular, yet most everyone talks aboot the price difference between regular and diesel


That may be true, but for the most cost-conscious group, the price of premium is irrelevant. It makes more impact when the difference between regular and diesel is little.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

The EPA test is completed on 92 Octane ethanol free gasoline. 

If you want to get anywhere near the EPA mileage numbers in a gasser, especially a turbocharged gasser, you must run super unleaded/premium. 

In my world superunleaded and diesel are always within 5cents of each other making the 30+% better MPG of the diesel well worth it. Add in the better driving dynamics of the diesel and it is a no brainer.

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Suns_PSD said:


> The EPA test is completed on 92 Octane ethanol free gasoline.
> 
> If you want to get anywhere near the EPA mileage numbers in a gasser, especially a turbocharged gasser, you must run super unleaded/premium.
> 
> ...


When I had my 2011 2LT gas Cruze, I tried running premium e10 and e-free premium for two or three weeks and noticed almost zero change in mileage compared to regular 87. Some report they get better mileage with premium, but I didn't; certainly not enough to offset the price difference vs. regular.

100% agree on the driving dynamics of the diesel. It's a totally different car.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

My CTD is efficient for long trips. My job requires that I provide a car and cover my entire state for which I am paid 56 cents/mile (IRS rate). During a busy month I am easily covering my car loan and all expenses with this reimbursement while averaging 45 mpg highway, driving fast and loaded. I had to use a rental 1LT for a while and I was lucky to average 30 mpg highway. I've done this job for 30 years and this is the first car that was this cost efficient. The urban mileage is unimpressive and exactly matches the EPA rating of 27. I would go with diesel just to avoid the hated, mandatory 10% ethanol which has damaged my 2001 BMW 740i and all of my power equipment. My 2008 Vibe runs well on it though. Pending increases in fuel taxes may hit gas harder than diesel since automobile drivers do not have the powerful trucking lobby to represent their interests.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

I put many of the same concerns in my post Jalaner. I have always taken a hit with E10. The lowest hit I have taken is 2-3MPG highway. All of my other cars take a 3-5MPG hit. Iowa hasn't mandated it yet, but I get the feeling we aren't far off. Avoiding the mileage penalty with E10 (and possibly E15) is something anyone looking at a Diesel should consider. I don't know what I will do on my older cars and lawn equipment if it is mandated. Guess I will cross that bridge when we get there. As it is now the difference between 87 octane straight gas and diesel isn't the cost delta some of these folks are reporting on the coasts.


----------



## TheGov (Feb 12, 2014)

When I ordered my CTD on President's Day the cost difference between regular and diesel was 70 cents. This morning it was down to 38-40 cents difference, which is 3 cents cheaper then Premium. Bring on the summer diesel may make it down below midgrade gas prices. Whoohoo!


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

$3.55 diesel and $3.21 regular at Murphy's Express in Gautier MS today. Premium was $3.62. Now Murphy's Express 6 miles West where I live is $3.69 diesel, $ 3.19 regular and $3.58 premium. All I can figure is that my high faulting town hates diesel owners. Gas Buddy is a great app for my iPhone, saves me a lot of driving.


----------



## alkiax (Jan 14, 2014)

About to have to fill up my diesel for the very first time and this morning I drove by a 7-11 that had diesel for 3.49! Lowest I've seen in quite a while. Now I just hope they are that price when i get off work.

Edited to $3.49 not $3.29


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

DrKlahn said:


> I put many of the same concerns in my post Jalaner. I have always taken a hit with E10. The lowest hit I have taken is 2-3MPG highway. All of my other cars take a 3-5MPG hit. Iowa hasn't mandated it yet, but I get the feeling we aren't far off. Avoiding the mileage penalty with E10 (and possibly E15) is something anyone looking at a Diesel should consider. I don't know what I will do on my older cars and lawn equipment if it is mandated. Guess I will cross that bridge when we get there. As it is now the difference between 87 octane straight gas and diesel isn't the cost delta some of these folks are reporting on the coasts.


Iowa has a law that their regular gas has to be 87 octane E0. Anyone traveling through Iowa will notice 89 octane midgrade cost less than regular, that because its 89 is E10 gas. Last fall Iowa stopped getting 87E0 though the pipe, now they get 84E0 and mix with 91E0 to make 87E0. This has added significant cost to their regular 87E0. That 84E0 is also used to make all the levels of ethanol fuels sold. 

The cruze is designed to run with ethanol gas(up to E15) and in city or mixed driving one will see little or no benefit running no ethanol fuel. Only time I gain anything is on 100% highway trips, even then its 2-4mpg at most. I run E15 fuel in my cruze 1/2 the time, preforms like premium for less cost than regular. Even with less energy content in 50F weather I get the same MPG at 70mph as I do with E10 fuel, 39mpg. 

At that rate(39mpg) with E15 fuel costs around $3.20 average My cost per mile is as low as you diesel guys, possibly lower.


----------



## titanman2789 (Oct 27, 2013)

I can't recall a mileage difference with e10 vs e0 in any of my gasoline vehicles. Maybe the cars felt like they ran better but I don't know. 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

spacedout said:


> Iowa has a law that their regular gas has to be 87 octane E0. Anyone traveling through Iowa will notice 89 octane midgrade cost less than regular, that because its 89 is E10 gas. Last fall Iowa stopped getting 87E0 though the pipe, now they get 84E0 and mix with 91E0 to make 87E0. This has added significant cost to their regular 87E0. That 84E0 is also used to make all the levels of ethanol fuels sold.
> 
> The cruze is designed to run with ethanol gas(up to E15) and in city or mixed driving one will see little or no benefit running no ethanol fuel. Only time I gain anything is on 100% highway trips, even then its 2-4mpg at most. I run E15 fuel in my cruze 1/2 the time, preforms like premium for less cost than regular. Even with less energy content in 50F weather I get the same MPG at 70mph as I do with E10 fuel, 39mpg.
> 
> At that rate(39mpg) with E15 fuel costs around $3.20 average My cost per mile is as low as you diesel guys, possibly lower.


Yup, well aware of the 87 mix and the hike to about $3.50/gal. They have also been lobbying around E15 on the news recently. All 3 of our gas cars take a hit on ethanol highway and city. Hand calculated and on the DIC. It's physics. Less energy is less energy. I haven't driven a gas Cruze on E10, perhaps they are optimizing the spark tables for E10. Although I can't see how that would make up the deficit. No design can change the physics of dealing with multiple fuels with different energy content with a set compression. If you wanted to optimize for E10/E15 you would need to compression ratio probably north of 14:1 and if you did that no pump gas widely sold now would be viable. If you're seeing no impact in City driving from E10/E15 I really can't explain it. I guess if enough fuel is wasted idling it would make the averages close. I also find 2-4MPG very significant as the majority of my commute is not City driving. 

I don't have any data to compare to your 39MPG at 70MPH with an air temp of 50*. My commute is 2 lane roads @ 60MPH and I have only had the car a couple of months (2 months of very few 50* days), so no good interstate data at that temp to compare with. I will say it is surprising to see you quote 39MPG (especially with ethanol), as the gas Cruze I had as rental when I hit a deer in my Cobalt got nowhere close to that. I believe it was an LT or LTZ (had very nice wheels). I don't know the powertrains on the gas model vs. trim, so perhaps that one I had is worse than your RS. On the same route I take to work I averaged in the lower 30's (32-33MPG w/ 87 non-ethanol) on the gas Cruze and the Diesel has been 37-44MPG even with the bitter cold and high winds (the gas Cruze was driven in a mild November). Again it is not apples to apples to your car. But it is the closest real world comparison I can give you with between gas and diesel on the same exact route, speed, etc over an extended time. 

I'll certainly be curious to see what the diesel does as the weather gets warmer. The mileage has seen tremendous gains. I don't play the overfill game so my tank has clicked off at 14 gallons and a few tenths each fill up. My last tank got 570, this tank is well on it's way to the low-mid 600's. Of course yesterday I drove into a 20-50MPH head wind and this morning it was 20-40mph again, so it may not make it. The brutal winds and cold have made it so hard to get a feel for what the car can really do. On Monday when it was 75* and I was driving west for about 7 miles it was pulling in the upper 60's on flat terrain even with the side wind trying to push the car into the ditch. Which I thought was unreal. Even though the majority of that trip was into the wind the car still hit 42MPG for the 50 mile average.


----------



## jalaner (Dec 28, 2013)

A few days ago Walmart was pricing diesel at $3.65. Great price, same as Sams. When I started fueling I noticed that the pump had a very small label (new) stating that I was buying 5% to 20% Biodiesel. The CTD Owners Manual states that although the car will accept biodiesel it will require additional maintenance and may cause problems. I will try to avoid it, especially until the newness wears off. Anyone else notice this stealth biodiesel entry into the market?


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

A small percentage of biodiesel actually helps lubricate the parts since US fuel is often deficient in that aspect. What percentage is up for debate. Using part biodiesel also reduces particulate emission. It would increase NOX emissions if it were not for the DEF.


----------



## Sperry (Aug 3, 2013)

The price of diesel around Toronto is slowly dropping.. Another month and I think it will be the same as regular gas


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

jalaner said:


> A few days ago Walmart was pricing diesel at $3.65. Great price, same as Sams. When I started fueling I noticed that the pump had a very small label (new) stating that I was buying 5% to 20% Biodiesel. The CTD Owners Manual states that although the car will accept biodiesel it will require additional maintenance and may cause problems. I will try to avoid it, especially until the newness wears off. Anyone else notice this stealth biodiesel entry into the market?


When I first got my Diesel last fall, I was excited to see the MurphyUSA/Walmart diesel selling at $0.15/gal. less than their competitors (Right now, they're at $3.59), but when I pulled up to fill the tank, I saw that label and realized why. I pulled away and learned to look for that label when I try out new stations in the future.


----------



## oilburner (Jun 13, 2013)

diesel is down almost the same as regular gas now 1.31 diesel an 1.27 a litre for gas ,a month ago there was a .14 cent spread
central ontario


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

You're only about 12-13 cents higher than us per gallon after the exchange (@91 cents). Diesel is running 4.35 - 4.45 here/gallon. Never saw such a small gap between US and Canada fuel. Then again, I never paid attention to diesel, only gasoline, up until 6 months ago.


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

yup diesel is at 3.72 in some areas near me but most stations are still holding at 3.80's glad to see it back at the prices in oct


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

Diesel usually runs about $.70/gal more than 87 E10 here. 87 E10 is at $3.75/gal. today.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Jim Frye said:


> Diesel usually runs about $.70/gal more than 87 E10 here. 87 E10 is at $3.75/gal. today.


Weren't you saying just a few weeks ago that you guys were as low as $2.xx? That's risen faster up your way than it has here! 


Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

jblackburn said:


> Weren't you saying just a few weeks ago that you guys were as low as $2.xx? That's risen faster up your way than it has here!


Yes, pump price changes here 2 - 3 times a day. I filled Black Betty up last Saturday for $3.32/gal. for 87 E10. The week before, it cost me $2.64/gal. The week before that it was something like $2.31/gal. Guess that summer blend gas they started delivering is way more expensive to produce (NOT!). And we have a BP and a Sunoco refineries right here in town. I've given up trying to find rhyme or reason for gas prices. It seems to come down to "they can do whatever they want" and you have no say in it.


----------



## Edward (Apr 10, 2014)

Diesel has been about the same for the last 3 or 4 years here, give or take 20 cents. Gas has gone up or down by almost a $1 at various points during that period. Currently gas is about 20 cents cheaper than diesel. Back in the fall it was 80 cents cheaper.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

The cheapest place, Murphy's Express in Gautier, just dropped diesel from $3.55 to $3.51 today. Meanwhile their regular unleaded has increased to $3.38. I think I'll swing through Gautier tomorrow.


----------



## Sperry (Aug 3, 2013)

Diesel dropped again around the Toronto area.. It's now just 3 cents more than regular


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

Edward said:


> Diesel has been about the same for the last 3 or 4 years here, give or take 20 cents. Gas has gone up or down by almost a $1 at various points during that period. Currently gas is about 20 cents cheaper than diesel. Back in the fall it was 80 cents cheaper.


Where is here?


----------



## plasticplant (Mar 26, 2013)

Diesel still holding strong at the $3.89 - $3.99 range here.


----------



## TheGov (Feb 12, 2014)

Regular Gas is averaging about $3.66 in my area. Diesel is hanging around $3.89 which is just a few cents more expensive than midgrade gasoline. I have posted on this thread before when the gap went from $0.70 down to $0.40, so now its sweet to see just a $0.23 difference is; one more reason to be excited about the CTD!


----------



## plasticplant (Mar 26, 2013)

I saw premium at one station today on my way to work at $4.99! Diesel still holding strong at $3.89


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

Around me, in SE Wisconsin, there's a 9-10% difference. Diesel being higher at right near $4.09/gal.


----------



## Vetterin (Mar 27, 2011)

plasticplant said:


> Diesel still holding strong at the $3.89 - $3.99 range here.


The same holds true in my part of town with 87 running about .20 to .30 more. What really gets me is that I still find E85 for $2.99 gal. I just might have to consider a flex fuel capable car.....like the Bentley Continental GT and save some money at the pump. :idiot:


----------



## CreepyD (Apr 25, 2014)

Gasoline price spiked recently here in Toronto, but Diesel stays the same. So, today diesel is actually cheaper! $1.36 a liter vs 1.40 for gasoline.
Got me thinking about a diesel-powered car.

For those paying $3 per gallon for gas vs $4 for diesel - just not worth it!


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

This is a followup from the conversation with SpacedOut.

I took a trip from work, near Ames IA, to Ft. Dodge IA on Tuesday. The trip took Interstate 35 and Highway 20 for 95% of the time. Distance 74 miles. Speed on I-35 was 73 MPH. Speed on Hwy 20 was 70MPH. Conditions were 66* with a NW wind at 6-10MPH (with the occasional gust). Mileage average on the way up according the DIC was 44.7MPG. Mileage on the way back was 50.3MPG. Used cruise whenever possible. Speed was the same both directions. Closest data I have gotten to your numbers so far.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

DrKlahn said:


> This is a followup from the conversation with SpacedOut.
> 
> I took a trip from work, near Ames IA, to Ft. Dodge IA on Tuesday. The trip took Interstate 35 and Highway 20 for 95% of the time. Distance 74 miles. Speed on I-35 was 73 MPH. Speed on Hwy 20 was 70MPH. Conditions were 66* with a NW wind at 6-10MPH (with the occasional gust). Mileage average on the way up according the DIC was 44.7MPG. Mileage on the way back was 50.3MPG. Used cruise whenever possible. Speed was the same both directions. Closest data I have gotten to your numbers so far.


That is the segment of road (except I went an extra hour north on US169) where I had my best non-wind-assisted 25 mile (64.8mpg) and 50 mile (56.6mpg) runs last fall. They stood until I drove the Fort Dodge to Algona segment twice with a 35mph tailwind that yielded a 60mpg 50 mile number and matched the 25 mile number.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

I could see that. It's fairly flat north of Story City. It is hilly between there and Ames and just before Ft. Dodge, but not terrible. I thought it was good data because, for the most part, the wind wasn't a huge factor. And the speed and temp were close to the figures we were discussing. According to NWS it had calmed to 6MPH or less on my way home and I was able to get the car up to 51.1MPG. But the speed on the roads I travel there were 60MPH. So not valid. I went to Grinnell from Des Moines on I-80 Easter weekend but the wind was a huge factor that day, so I considered the data skewed and didn't post anything. The car got 41MPG there (into constant 40MPH gusts) and back got 48MPG. But with somewhat of a tailwind (the wind calmed down some by evening but was still a factor). The temp was not in the range we were discussing either.


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

4.19 - 4.29 typically right now.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

`
*$4.75 a Gallon for Auto Diesel*

In my neck of the woods, Western PA, Auto Diesel generally runs about a buck a gallon more than Regular Unleaded. Yesterday's price was $3.70 a gallon for 87 octane gasoline and $4.75 a gallon for Auto Diesel. With those numbers, almost $5.00 a gallon for Diesel, it's difficult to make a case for Diesel based on economics.

It's likely just coincidental, but it sure seems there's a business plan operating to discourage American drivers from adopting highly efficient Diesel platforms for personal transportation.


----------



## danhr (Apr 19, 2014)

UlyssesSG said:


> `
> *$4.75 a Gallon for Auto Diesel*
> 
> In my neck of the woods, Western PA, Auto Diesel generally runs about a buck a gallon more than Regular Unleaded. Yesterday's price was $3.70 a gallon for 87 octane gasoline and $4.75 a gallon for Auto Diesel. With those numbers, almost $5.00 a gallon for Diesel, it's difficult to make a case for Diesel based on economics.
> ...


Where are you at? I'm in Western PA too (Pittsburgh to be exact), and i'm paying 4.16/gallon


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

danhr said:


> Where are you at? I'm in Western PA too (Pittsburgh to be exact), and i'm paying 4.16/gallon


Southern Indiana Country near the Westmoreland County border. The Diesel price is at a Sheetz Superstore, the only fuelling option we have locally.


----------



## msav (Apr 24, 2014)

Right now is the central valley of northern california. The cheapest price for diesel is 3.99 /gal and the cheapest price for reg unleaded is 3.95 /gal


----------



## cmsdock (Feb 16, 2014)

Central Ohio thursday. 
87 Gas 3.85
Diesel 3.89


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

It takes so long to go through a tank on this beast that I forget what I pay from fill to fill 

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## warloc (Dec 10, 2013)

Califonia diesel fuel prices now cheaper than regular gas by 29 cents, 50 cents cheaper than premium! 

Diesel $3.99

Regular $4.29


----------



## Su8pack1 (Apr 17, 2014)

I saw it for $4.19 today in eastern PA. Hovering around that price for a while now.


----------



## UlyssesSG (Apr 5, 2011)

Su8pack1 said:


> I saw it for $4.19 today in eastern PA. Hovering around that price for a while now.


Where I live in Western Pennsylvania the price of auto diesel has been creeping upwards for a while now. It's now nearing $5.00 a gallon with today's price signboarded at $4.86 9/10. No matter how efficient manufacturers make personal transportation, the petroleum industry will protect their profits and margins and state and federal lawmakers will make sure the taxman gets an ever-increasing cut.

Doesn't make the Cruze Diesel any less a rewarding car to drive, but it sure spoils the fun.


----------



## Ger8mm (Mar 13, 2014)

3.79 Diesel here,


----------



## oilburner (Jun 13, 2013)

diesel is now cheaper than gas by 2 cents a litre here


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

Current prices 2 blocks from my house...

RUG is 3.79/gal

Diesel 3.99/gal

Premium Gas 4.09/gal

I'll take it!


----------



## VtTD (Nov 5, 2013)

Finally prices are coming in line here. 3.99-4.19 for diesel (mostly 4.09) and 3.70s for regular.


----------



## Jim Frye (Mar 16, 2011)

The oil industry has finally beaten me down. I don't care what prices are anymore. They play with prices at will. Yesterday, the 3 stations near my house changed the prices three times in 24 hours. Diesel has been 70 cents a gallon more than 87 E10 for several weeks. Yesterday, it was only 40 cents a gallon more than 87 E10. Record profits to be announced at the end of the next quarter.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

diesel sseason ftw


----------



## Suns_PSD (Feb 16, 2013)

Bummer. Diesel is $3.52/ g near me. My other vehicle runs better on SuperUnleaded which costs me about $3.79/g.

Sent from AutoGuide.com App


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

I went to fuelly.com and compared gas L4 engines (30 mpg) to L4 diesel engined Cruzes and the diesel is averaging 9.6 mpg (39.6 mpg) better than the gas model. That's almost 20% better than the gas model. 

Diesel fuel in my area is $3.76 a gallon and 87 octane gas is $3.44 or diesel fuel is 9% more expensive. These averages were for 2014 models, 207,000 gas miles and 500,000+ diesel miles to acquire the average. 

I'm not an economist, but it seems if that mpg and fuel prices remained constant for a couple years of ownership, it would be reasonable to assume that the diesel is the economy champ. Needless to say, you would have to make up the $1600 difference in vehicle purchase price and I suspect it depends on how long you keep your cars. Someone smarter than I could come up with a cost per year based on 15,000 miles for both cars and compute the actual fuel costs for each...couldn't they?

If you divide 15,000 by 30 mpg and 39.6, respectively and multiply the number of gallons used by each, my calculations say it cost the gas owner $1700 a year and the diesel owner only $1124...or almost $600 a year less on the diesel. It would take the diesel less than 3 years to make up the $1600 in purchase price.

DEF for the diesel would be a cost factor, but only after 2 years.

Where did I go wrong in this thinking?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Don't forget the diesels seem to be hwy drivers while the gas ones are city cruzers


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ParisTNDude said:


> I went to fuelly.com and compared gas L4 engines (30 mpg) to L4 diesel engined Cruzes and the diesel is averaging 9.6 mpg (39.6 mpg) better than the gas model. That's almost 20% better than the gas model.


Does fuelly have a way to show the 1.8L vs 1.4L? I couldn't find any. This really brings down the gas MPG. You should also use the 32-33mpg fleet average for the 2011-2013 gas cruze, not just the 2014 numbers. 

Average gas cruze gets 33mpg, my average is 35mpg. So based on that I could technically get a few MPG better than the diesel average too, so instead of 39mpg would be 41mpg average for me. Since I already buy premium gas the fuel cost difference is non-existent. Only problem? I can drive 60,000+ miles for free based on the diesel engines extra cost alone. That's equal to doubling the mileage of my car in the same 100,000 miles.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Does fuelly have a way to show the 1.8L vs 1.4L? I couldn't find any. This really brings down the gas MPG. You should also use the 32-33mpg fleet average for the 2011-2013 gas cruze, not just the 2014 numbers.
> 
> Average gas cruze gets 33mpg, my average is 35mpg. So based on that I could technically get a few MPG better than the diesel average too, so instead of 39mpg would be 41mpg average for me. Since I already buy premium gas the fuel cost difference is non-existent. Only problem? I can drive 60,000+ miles for free based on the diesel engines extra cost alone. That's equal to doubling the mileage of my car in the same 100,000 miles.


Actually fuelly shows all Cruze to be like 1.2L or something crazy like that. 


Sent from my iFail 5s


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

money_man said:


> Don't forget the diesels seem to be hwy drivers while the gas ones are city cruzers


Just curious how you arrived at that conclusion. In that average is included my driving statistics and I rarely get out of town. It would be interesting if you could average out the highway vs city driving. They do collect an estimate of what % you drove on highway/city.



spacedout said:


> Does fuelly have a way to show the 1.8L vs 1.4L? I couldn't find any. This really brings down the gas MPG. You should also use the 32-33mpg fleet average for the 2011-2013 gas cruze, not just the 2014 numbers.
> 
> Average gas cruze gets 33mpg, my average is 35mpg. So based on that I could technically get a few MPG better than the diesel average too, so instead of 39mpg would be 41mpg average for me. Since I already buy premium gas the fuel cost difference is non-existent. Only problem? I can drive 60,000+ miles for free based on the diesel engines extra cost alone. That's equal to doubling the mileage of my car in the same 100,000 miles.


Because there's a wide range of gas Cruzes, it wouldn't be fair to judge based on the size of the engine. There are a number of different diesel engines as well.

According to the average mileage and cost of fuel I used, you couldn't drive 60,000 miles to earn the difference in cost. To drive 15,000 miles (average mileage per year) cost you $1700, so to make up the difference of $600 a year ,the diesel driver could recoup the extra cost in 3 years. Your average mileage can't be compared to the national average for your car. We could take the CTD owner who gets the best mpg and really skew the calculation.

Some have said the CTD average is really under-rated on fuelly, because the majority of all CTDs on the road today, were purchased in the winter months and thus lower fuel mileage. Since there weren't any 2013 Cruze diesels, why would we include older gas Cruzes? Apples to apples. The VW TDI made a significant change in engines which improved their MPG from year to year, as an example.




Merc6 said:


> Actually fuelly shows all Cruze to be like 1.2L or something crazy like that.
> 
> Sent from my iFail 5s


I didn't see anything that suggested that the average size of a Cruze engine is 1.2L. That might be true, but I couldn't pull it out of the data we have available. I used the L4 engine category with over 700 fuelly.com data suppliers. There were a variety of sizes of diesels as well, but the calculation to compare the smallest gas vs diesel and the largest would be far more than my tiny brain could comprehend or calculate...lol.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ParisTNDude said:


> According to the average mileage and cost of fuel I used, you couldn't drive 60,000 miles to earn the difference in cost. To drive 15,000 miles (average mileage per year) cost you $1700, so to make up the difference of $600 a year ,the diesel driver could recoup the extra cost in 3 years.


Not sure how you get your numbers, but I have 45,000 miles on my car and have only spent $4,800 in fuel costs. Certainly looks like I can go around 60,000 miles for $6,000 dollars(that's running premium). 

I'm also not sure about where are you getting $600 a year from? Cost of fuel being the same($4) 15,000 miles a year by 33mpg(fleet average for gas) is 455 gallons a year. Using the diesel fleet average of 39mpg that's 385 gallons a year, for a difference of 70 gallons or $280 diesel savings a year. Now subtract all extra cost involved with the diesel(DEF, filters, anti-gel, ect) so your probably around $200 saved annually with a diesel. 

At that rate you will have to drive your car 450,000 miles to make up the diesels extra cost, nullifying any MPG increase over the gas model. As if my free almost 60,000 miles on gas wasn't enough to show how the diesel doesn't save any money. Think of it like the chevy volt, my MPG equivalent with all those free miles is probably more than double that of your diesel. 



ParisTNDude said:


> Your average mileage can't be compared to the national average for your car. We could take the CTD owner who gets the best mpg and really skew the calculation.


I think you mis-interpreted my meaning. I took the fleet average of the gas cruze(33MPG) and since I get above that with mine your saying I can't take that difference and apply to the fleet average of diesel cruze to estimate what I would get with a diesel cruze? I would certainly think I could considering they are identical in almost every way.



ParisTNDude said:


> Some have said the CTD average is really under-rated on fuelly, because the majority of all CTDs on the road today, were purchased in the winter months and thus lower fuel mileage. Since there weren't any 2013 Cruze diesels, why would we include older gas Cruzes? Apples to apples.


If I'm not mistaken the diesel was available in late 2013, before the rest of the 2014 cruze came out. Just ask the guys with the 2013 mylink.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

spacedout said:


> Not sure how you get your numbers, but I have 45,000 miles on my car and have only spent $4,800 in fuel costs. Certainly looks like I can go around 60,000 miles for $6,000 dollars(that's running premium).
> 
> I'm also not sure about where are you getting $600 a year from? Cost of fuel being the same($4) 15,000 miles a year by 33mpg(fleet average for gas) is 455 gallons a year. Using the diesel fleet average of 39mpg that's 385 gallons a year, for a difference of 70 gallons or $280 diesel savings a year. Now subtract all extra cost involved with the diesel(DEF, filters, anti-gel, ect) so your probably around $200 saved annually with a diesel.
> 
> ...


I thought I explained in detail how I arrived at my figures. If you want to use your personal fuel mileage data for comparison, your welcome to do that...it just wouldn't be a national average.

I have no clue how you arrived at the fact that it would take 450,000 miles to recoup $1600, the difference in Cruze CTD vs 2lt purchase price, but if that figure makes YOU happy, that's ok too.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ParisTNDude said:


> I have no clue how you arrived at the fact that it would take 450,000 miles to recoup $1600, the difference in Cruze CTD vs 2lt purchase price, but if that figure makes YOU happy, that's ok too.


First you want to use fleet numbers for MPG but when it comes to cost vs the average cruze I have to compare to a 2LT? Sure option vs option it is the most comparable gas cruze however most people like me do not want to pay for features we don't want or need. The Diesel is $6000 more than a very similarly equipped 1LT(1.4T auto). Only option you can't get on a 1LT is navigation, everything else is avalible. Sure the 2LT adds leather, heated seats, rear disc brakes, ect but again those are features I'm not interested in. 

Even if I go by 2LT vs Diesel 2LT, $1600 still takes 8 years/120,000 miles to pay off(based on 15,000 miles a year & only saving $200 annually). 

If I bought a 2LT gas I would only save $1600 but that's a free year of gas for most people. Calculating the MPG equivalent over 3 years(based on 33mpg gas fleet average) that free year pushes the 2LT mpg equivalent to 49.5MPG. At 6 years(90,000 miles) that's still a 39.5 MPG equivalent. Seems there is no fuel savings driving the diesel even if you compare to a 2LT.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> First you want to use fleet numbers for MPG but when it comes to cost vs the average cruze I have to compare to a 2LT? Sure option vs option it is the most comparable gas cruze however most people like me do not want to pay for features we don't want or need. The Diesel is $6000 more than a very similarly equipped 1LT(1.4T auto). Only option you can't get on a 1LT is navigation, everything else is avalible. Sure the 2LT adds leather, heated seats, rear disc brakes, ect but again those are features I'm not interested in.
> 
> Even if I go by 2LT vs Diesel 2LT, $1600 still takes 8 years/120,000 miles to pay off(based on 15,000 miles a year & only saving $200 annually).
> 
> If I bought a 2LT gas I would only save $1600 but that's a free year of gas for most people. Calculating the MPG equivalent over 3 years(based on 33mpg gas fleet average) that free year pushes the 2LT mpg equivalent to 49.5MPG. At 6 years(90,000 miles) that's still a 39.5 MPG equivalent. Seems there is no fuel savings driving the diesel even if you compare to a 2LT.


Ideally, an Eco gasser with 2LT package and Eco-D would be the most comparable. But all the add-on stuff onto the Eco/2LT would probably reduce the cost difference for the diesel engine down to $1000. At that point, looking at a comparative equipped car for $ savings from a MPG standpoint, the Diesel does start to make more sense.

Comparing a LS/1LT to a fully-loaded Diesel doesn't really make any sense at all if you're looking purely at saving $ and don't care about features. In that sense, you can pick up a bare-bones LS for $14K and *never* make up the MPG savings of a 1LT or Eco gasser at $17-19K, much less a Diesel at $23-24K.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

spacedout said:


> First you want to use fleet numbers for MPG but when it comes to cost vs the average cruze I have to compare to a 2LT? Sure option vs option it is the most comparable gas cruze however most people like me do not want to pay for features we don't want or need. The Diesel is $6000 more than a very similarly equipped 1LT(1.4T auto). Only option you can't get on a 1LT is navigation, everything else is avalible. Sure the 2LT adds leather, heated seats, rear disc brakes, ect but again those are features I'm not interested in.
> 
> Even if I go by 2LT vs Diesel 2LT, $1600 still takes 8 years/120,000 miles to pay off(based on 15,000 miles a year & only saving $200 annually).
> 
> If I bought a 2LT gas I would only save $1600 but that's a free year of gas for most people. Calculating the MPG equivalent over 3 years(based on 33mpg gas fleet average) that free year pushes the 2LT mpg equivalent to 49.5MPG. At 6 years(90,000 miles) that's still a 39.5 MPG equivalent. Seems there is no fuel savings driving the diesel even if you compare to a 2LT.


Just because you aren't interested in the features it doesn't make an apples to oranges comparison somehow valid. People on a budget that would not opt for the 2LT would not opt for a diesel. 

As others have pointed out, I think the diesel needs more time to gather data. My per tank average between January and March was 37-40 MPG. Since April it has been edging up quite dramatically. The last tank was about 45MPG. The others have averaged 41-43MPG. My driving is about 80/20 HWY/City. Sure the numbers may or may not change as far fleet averages go, but I think it's premature to consider the sampling we have so far definitive. 

If you're looking purely at economics and you believe that gas/ethanol blends will not be a factor in the near future operating costs, then a 6MT Eco is the likely the best operating cost option. As far as the diesel needing filters, DEF, and additives none of these are really high cost considerations. The tractor store had a gallon of DEF on sale for something like $10 the other day (I've put over 6k miles on the car and have yet to need to fill it). I spent $8 on a winter additive that lasted 7 tanks. The first tank I ran (which weathered some ridiculously cold temps) had nothing added and did just fine. It's cheap insurance like adding Heet in a gas motor. Sure it all adds up, but it's not a tremendous expenditure.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

DrKlahn said:


> Just because you aren't interested in the features it doesn't make an apples to oranges comparison somehow valid. People on a budget that would not opt for the 2LT would not opt for a diesel.


Right, I hear so many diesel guys say that. That is why I used his numbers(2LT vs 2LT diesel) to show how the diesel doesn't save any money over 100,000 miles. 



DrKlahn said:


> As others have pointed out, I think the diesel needs more time to gather data. My per tank average between January and March was 37-40 MPG. Since April it has been edging up quite dramatically. The last tank was about 45MPG.


I agree the diesel fleet MPG should come up with warmer weather, don't forget though there was already 4 months last fall of warm weather calculated in. 



DrKlahn said:


> As far as the diesel needing filters, DEF, and additives none of these are really high cost considerations.


Its not far fetched to figure $80 a year extra maintenance, fuel additives, DEF and filter costs with the diesel. BTW heat is no longer needed in a gas engine when 10% ethanol became the norm. The cruze 2014 owners manual specifically says on 9-53 to not add any fuel with methanol as it will corrode the fuel system(the active ingredient in the yellow bottles of heat). The red bottle of heat is ethyl alcohol so should be safe, but again unneeded with modern fuels.


----------



## DrKlahn (Feb 10, 2014)

spacedout said:


> Right, I hear so many diesel guys say that. That is why I used his numbers(2LT vs 2LT diesel) to show how the diesel doesn't save any money over 100,000 miles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We had one of the coldest falls of the last 25 years here and I believe in most of the Midwest, so the data there would be well below average. $80 would be well above what I calculate. At most $20 in fuel additives if you had a winter like this one where you are looking at months of below zero wind chills. A typical winter you really only need to worry about late December-February. 1 bottle of additive would suffice in that case. DEF is covered under the warranty, but even if I had to add a full gallon a year, that's another $10-20 depending on whether you catch it on sale. At the current consumption I can't really see needing a full gallon a year.

Ethanol has been a net loss cost wise in all of our cars, so we avoid it. I don't really use any gas additives either to be honest. I'm new to owning a diesel, so I use the fuel additive out of a little bit of paranoia. The modern diesel blends likely make it unnecessary, but it's cheap insurance. I know people with farm trucks that just switch to winter blend diesel and don't worry about it. They seem to do fine.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

DEF is pretty much a non-factor if you buy it right. I'd avoid those 2.5 gal. jugs and go for pump DEF if you can find it. 2.5 gallons of pump DEF costs $6.97, and the cost has been within a dime difference everywhere I have seen it. I know that I live in rural Iowa, and the town 10 miles down the road with a population of 5000 that's an hour from a freeway has pump DEF, so it should be available just about anywhere if you look. It runs only 2.79/gal. so at 2500-3000 miles per gallon of DEF (which is what I've seen over my 16,000 miles) that's about $10 every 10,000 miles.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

spacedout said:


> First you want to use fleet numbers for MPG but when it comes to cost vs the average cruze I have to compare to a 2LT? Sure option vs option it is the most comparable gas cruze however most people like me do not want to pay for features we don't want or need. The Diesel is $6000 more than a very similarly equipped 1LT(1.4T auto). Only option you can't get on a 1LT is navigation, everything else is avalible. Sure the 2LT adds leather, heated seats, rear disc brakes, ect but again those are features I'm not interested in.
> 
> Even if I go by 2LT vs Diesel 2LT, $1600 still takes 8 years/120,000 miles to pay off(based on 15,000 miles a year & only saving $200 annually).
> 
> If I bought a 2LT gas I would only save $1600 but that's a free year of gas for most people. Calculating the MPG equivalent over 3 years(based on 33mpg gas fleet average) that free year pushes the 2LT mpg equivalent to 49.5MPG. At 6 years(90,000 miles) that's still a 39.5 MPG equivalent. Seems there is no fuel savings driving the diesel even if you compare to a 2LT.


Firstly, it wasn't I who calculated the $1600 difference in price although I fully agree with it. That you don't want to pay for options, is quite alright in my book, but you can't cost compare a 1LT to a CTD and try to equate the difference in cost to an mpg figure...well, I guess anyone can quote faulty logic and some will always believe it...lol..but you can't fool me. I could have bought a KIA Rio and the difference between it's cost and your car would net me in the neighborhood of 100mpg...now doesn't that sound stupid?

I guess you didn't agree with my logic in comparing 2014 CTD to 2014 gas models...just curious why? You do realize the 2013/14 winter was one of the coldest on record across the US which would affect the mileage of both vehicles but more so on a diesel. If you read the diesel threads, you'll see that most agree that a diesel isn't even broken in until 10,000 miles or so which would happen in 8 to 12 months for most drivers and the diesel fuel mileage isn't optimized until it's broken in. Advantage goes to the gas model. So, same year to same year makes a whole lot of sense to me. But, again, if you want to use your faulty logic, go for it.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

ParisTNDude said:


> I guess you didn't agree with my logic in comparing 2014 CTD to 2014 gas models...just curious why? You do realize the 2013/14 winter was one of the coldest on record across the US which would affect the mileage of both vehicles but more so on a diesel. If you read the diesel threads, you'll see that most agree that a diesel isn't even broken in until 10,000 miles or so which would happen in 8 to 12 months for most drivers and the diesel fuel mileage isn't optimized until it's broken in. Advantage goes to the gas model. So, same year to same year makes a whole lot of sense to me. But, again, if you want to use your faulty logic, go for it.



I already agreed you will see a slight increase in diesel fleet MPG with the warmer weather, however over all 2014 numbers will not likely change much since the diesel production is so insignificant. There is currently a few MPG increase for the fleet of 2014 cars, I suspect this is totally due to the diesel. 

All on here agree the gas model also takes around 8K miles to break in also so that's not really a factor. Looking at fuelly.com numbers all cars will average out over the year. Doesn't matter if the winter was long & cold my average is only 0.5MPG less than this time compared to a two year average. I dealt with the same cold weather everyone else did. 

So go ahead and look at just 2014 gas models, but your overlooking the fact that all those millions of miles already tested on 2011-2013 cars utilizing the same engine/trans give a much more accurate number.

Somehow the diesel coming out in July of last year is being overlooked by you(before other gas 2014 models). That leaves July-October & now april/may of warm weather already calculated in. Sure again we will see an increase but I suspect it wont be more than a couple MPG.


----------



## Garandman (Dec 31, 2013)

This discussion is moot in that the CTD has a lot more torque and is very quiet at highway speeds. The gas models seem to work a lot harder in the mountains.



spacedout said:


> Right, I hear so many diesel guys say that. That is why I used his numbers(2LT vs 2LT diesel) to show how the diesel doesn't save any money over 100,000 miles.
> 
> I agree the diesel fleet MPG should come up with warmer weather, don't forget though there was already 4 months last fall of warm weather calculated in.
> 
> Its not far fetched to figure $80 a year extra maintenance, fuel additives, DEF and filter costs with the diesel. Wall of text


We bought a Cruze TD at work in December, part of a small fleet of six. We record _all_ costs of ownership. 

The result is that Monday we pick up another one. We put a lot of miles on these cars - 36,000 to 40,000 per year - and expect the CTD to have significantly lower total cost. Some of that is made up by much superior resale value of high-mileage diesels versus gas cars.

Leather seats hold up much better in business use, and we wanted nav and a backup camera.


----------



## Sperry (Aug 3, 2013)

The price of diesel just outside the Toronto area is about 6 cents per liter cheaper than regular gas now..Hopefully it gets back under $1.20 per liter

P. S. I think I'll save the difference in original cost fairly quick doing 40,000 a year.. That's one of reason's I bought one.. # 2 .. GM discount # 3... Diesel is cheaper here for 8 months.. # 4.. Torque is much better with this than the Prius I was considering.. BOTTOM LINE IMHO , I'm very very happy with my purchase and don't see the point in trying to see who got the better value


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

$3.31 for RUG and $3.48 for diesel at the cheapest place 6 miles away. $3.67 for diesel at the same named service station(Murphy's) only 2 miles away. Why the difference? Ya got me. They are both on the same highway and equal distance from the interstate.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

All of the cost per mile/year/lifetime doesn't concern me to be honest. The day the Cruze went on display at the local dealership, I wanted one. It was a very cool car with great fuel mileage and it was the right size for my downsized family (we had our twin granddaughters until they were 18) and now it's perfect for what we need. 

I've had 5 BMWs, 2 Mercedes, Audis, 5 Corvettes and Lexus along with a bunch of Chevys and none of those were any "better" than the Cruze...great but not better! Of course, they all fit my car needs at the time and certainly served their purpose well. We're all really blessed to live in America, Australia, New Zealand and England among others, and even in this awful economy, can still buy a new car now and again.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

ParisTNDude said:


> All of the cost per mile/year/lifetime doesn't concern me to be honest. The day the Cruze went on display at the local dealership, I wanted one. It was a very cool car with great fuel mileage and it was the right size for my downsized family (we had our twin granddaughters until they were 18) and now it's perfect for what we need.
> 
> I've had 5 BMWs, 2 Mercedes, Audis, 5 Corvettes and Lexus along with a bunch of Chevys and none of those were any "better" than the Cruze...great but not better! Of course, they all fit my car needs at the time and certainly served their purpose well. We're all really blessed to live in America, Australia, New Zealand and England among others, and even in this awful economy, can still buy a new car now and again.


I totally agree with you about higher end cars not being "better" than the Cruze, having owned several myself.


----------



## PanJet (Jun 18, 2013)

Good grief. I'm mostly gone from the forums here for more than six weeks, and I come back and the diesel vs. gas argument is alive and well. Granted, I was before a large contributor to the debate, but it's getting really tired.

Diesel in my area (I was in northern MN, now moved to Portland, OR area) is about $3.84. Gas is around $3.79. If you're willing to go higher bio, up to B20, you can get it easily for about $3.57.


----------



## Boog8302 (Sep 6, 2013)

I laughed the other day. Here in Brunswick, OH gas and diesel are about the same price. Diesel being $3.89 and gas being $3.80. Everyone was like oh you spend too much on fuel when it was winter time. Not anymore. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

The price doesn't matter so much in the summer anyway since my 1.4T runs like crap on regular and requires premium fuel. Premium and diesel are within 10-20 cents a gallon all year long here, but closer in the summer.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

All I can say is at least you do not live in Cincinnati. There was a study/report done and Cincinnati while everyone else is @ 3.50 - 3.60 we are at 3.99 What is special about our gas that it is more expensive?


----------



## albo60s (May 29, 2014)

here in Wisconsin Gas & diesel are the same price. Around $3.89 per gallon.


----------



## mr overkill (Dec 1, 2013)

diesel was 345 gas 335


----------



## plasticplant (Mar 26, 2013)

Regular - $4.09. Diesel - $3.79. Gurnee, IL on Washington and Grand Ave. Its been like this for about a week now.


----------



## vwgtiglx (Jun 13, 2013)

plasticplant said:


> Regular - $4.09. Diesel - $3.79. Gurnee, IL on Washington and Grand Ave. Its been like this for about a week now.


Diesel - $3.69. Waukegan, IL on HWY 41 and Bradley Road @ Speedway. Its been that way for at least the past month now.


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

SE Wisconsin...diesel is cheaper than gas, for now. $3.69 vs $3.89.


----------



## Sanjay Collins (Jun 25, 2013)

$4.05 for Diesel and $4.09 for Premium is the cheapest of the Shell stations here in the greater Seattle area. I only use Shell, but I know Arco is cheaper, it's in the high $3 range.


----------



## albo60s (May 29, 2014)

Where in Elkhorn? 
Im up in Eagle. 
Might take a ride down!


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

Eagle? That's about 20 minutes away due north. Did you ever see the house with my car parked in the garage? That's my place. Bring down a couple beers and some food. We'll have a couple beers and something to eat.


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

Jk...I live on cty rd H. Runs n/s between Elkhorn and Lake Geneva. There's a subdivision just west of hy 12, that's where I'm at. Hit me up...pm or whatever.


----------



## albo60s (May 29, 2014)

no I meant where is that cheap diesel fuel at???LOL


----------



## MOTO13 (Mar 26, 2014)

Oh...I thought you wanted to be friends. No big deal, I'll just be you're cheap diesel finding lil bitch. No...don't consider my feelings, I'm fine. Didn't expect it to work out anyway. 

lol...the Kwik Trip on 67 right as you enter the north side Elkhorn. They sell premium diesel as well. No DEF though.


----------



## gulfcoastguy (Feb 21, 2013)

$3.43 a gallon for diesel and $3.23 for RUG today at Murphy's Express in Gautier MS this afternoon. One of the only two diesel pumps was being worked on and the diesel pumps are the middle pumps on the outside islands. If somebody is using the north end pump for gas they also block the diesel pump.


----------



## ParisTNDude (Oct 7, 2013)

spacedout said:


> The price doesn't matter so much in the summer anyway since my 1.4T runs like crap on regular and requires premium fuel. Premium and diesel are within 10-20 cents a gallon all year long here, but closer in the summer.


You know...I've never driven a gas cruze...need to do that some day...good cars for sure.



Patman said:


> All I can say is at least you do not live in Cincinnati. There was a study/report done and Cincinnati while everyone else is @ 3.50 - 3.60 we are at 3.99 What is special about our gas that it is more expensive?


The real reason is (don't tell anyone) YOU live there



MOTO13 said:


> Eagle? That's about 20 minutes away due north. Did you ever see the house with my car parked in the garage? That's my place. Bring down a couple beers and some food. We'll have a couple beers and something to eat.


I bet he didn't see your car because you park in the garage!!!


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I also have never driven a gas cruze


----------



## fred20 (Apr 26, 2014)

S. E. Mich. 87 is 3.79/ diesel is 3.99. The diesel has been close to that for at least couple months


----------



## fred20 (Apr 26, 2014)

Gas passed diesel, reg. 3.99/ dies 3.89 se mich


----------



## Sperry (Aug 3, 2013)

Diesel is almost 10 cents / liter cheaper than regular here around Toronto now


----------



## Zenturi (Jan 25, 2014)

Tanked up for $3.73 a gallon diesel in South Carolina today. Doesn't seem so bad. I put 89 octane regular into my secondary car ... which costs about that much.


----------

