You left out one major factor in diesel adoption: climate. In large swathes of the US (NY, PA, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota all come to mind) there are times of year where you simply wouldn't be able to start any but the hardiest of modern diesels. When I lived in NY, my older gasoline car barely wanted to start when it was -20F outside. If you are unfortunate enough to not have a heated garage (hello apartment dwellers!) then you just can't own a diesel if it regularly gets obscenely cold.
As someone who drives an old diesel Mercedes, let me just say: pffft. My 1984 300TD does 0-60 in about 180 seconds. Yes, three minutes. Entering all but the longest onramps can be a problem if I'm not already going 30MPH at the time. I love everything about that car, but it does tend to piss off the people behind me.
If they bought them because they were reliable, they wouldn't be transitioning over to other fleet cars, and other parts of the world wouldn't be avoiding them. Ford's one saving grace (if you discount loyalty to them because they used to be an American brand) is that they're cheap to own, and fairly cheap to fix.
In a passenger car, if having a diesel vs. a gasoline engine can lead to a 5x the life expectancy, then why NOT have one? Having known plenty of people with dodge trucks (though over the years, only one who had a diesel) I have a hard time believing that the rest of the damn thing didn't fall apart around the engine long before it reached that kind of mileage.
And respectfully, don't be such a dick. I hold a different opinion than you based on different experiences. I am not a mechanic, but I know more about what I drive and have driven than 90% of the people on the road. I disagree with you, but I will disagree respectfully.
No, I did not mistype. I bought it as-is, and all of those things were long past proper end-of-life. I tapped the air filter and large chunks of gunk fell out. The tires were bald, and one of them had a slow leak. The battery was so old (from 2003, I believe) that I had to jump it to drive it home from where I bought it. At less than $20, an oil change was a no-brainer since it was jet black when I checked it.
You assume I buy new. I always buy used to avoid the several thousand dollars a year that comprehensive insurance (mandated if you buy a car on a loan) would cost me. I suppose if you buy new and treat a vehicle as disposable after say, 250,000 miles, American cars are a good fit. That's how my father does it.
I'm no speed demon, nor have I ever been. I learned to drive in a Ford Escort, and that paltry 88hp was never too sluggish for me. I have an old diesel Mercedes now (which I absolutely love to death) and it's got a glacial 0-20 time (don't even ask about 0-60) and I don't try to rush it. I plan on getting 500k to a million miles out of that car, because I personally know at least three people that've done it.
10,000 on one engine (of my driving) and 20,000 on the replacement. If you're going to be pedantic, at least get that part right.
Just because *I* didn't drive it 30k while I owned it doesn't mean that those miles and wear aren't there... the Ford had 52k when I got it, and the Volvo 186k. And yet the Volvo didn't need work done when I got it and the Ford did. That fact in and of itself says a lot.
I see those Crown Vics with 200k+ and I raise you the Greek taxi fleets of old Diesel Mercedes, a number of which are still in service with well over a million miles.
My definition of "reliable" and yours clearly differ by a very large margin. Fords are cheap. When they break, they just buy another one for the fleet. And police departments use them because they're what Ford offers with the "enforcer" engines. It's not the same ones you get in stock CV's.
I admit I had abnormally bad luck. But the engineering quality difference isn't any less for it.
Shop around, buy low-milage used 1994 Ford (52k) for $2500. Put $500 into it immediately to fix various small problems with it (thermostat, couple of other issues). Drive it gently less than 10,000 miles, blow engine. Replace engine, drive further 20,000 miles, blow engine again. Experience #1.
After Ford blows up, buy 1992 Volvo with 186k (3.5x milage as the Ford) for $950. Put in battery, air filter, oil change, and fresh gas. Drive it for 2000 miles without the slightest problem, at which point I bought my current vehicle (1984 Mercedes) and no longer need the Volvo. Experience #2.
I paid significantly less for the Volvo than I did for it's predecessor, and it ran needing NO MAJOR SERVICE (and continues to run, though it is no longer registered because insuring two cars is ruinously expensive) for the entire time I owned it, with 3.5x as many miles on it.
I really used to believe that American cars were quality, but owning them for years, and now the stark contrast with European engineering has been just staggering.
Didn't the Crown Vic of that era also have that engine, or was that a V8? Because I know there's plenty of those with a propensity for cracking head gaskets (just like both Fords I owned did).
This has not been my experience. When I drove domestics, I had nothing but problems, and now that I've owned as many European cars (admittedly, brands known for reliability) as I have American, I would never buy American again.
Also based on experience is price of repairs (higher for new cars than it is for older ones) and general feel of cheapness in construction in ALL newer cars is why I drive an '84 Mercedes.
It's a pity Mercedes has gone the route of performance over reliability and quality lately. They have fallen quite a way from the days when their iron-block diesels were considered THE car to own for longevity (I happen to own one).
I had several mid-1990s American cars, and they were without exception, junk. Replacing the engine (or a serious overhaul) sounds right in line with what I have come to expect from American cars. The Volvo (a 1992 960) I bought for $900 needed only routine attention (oil change, air filter, battery, tires) and I drove it from 186k to 188k without the slightest hiccup. I would not trust an American-made car with 186k on it, because it's either at or near it's designed end-of-life.
There are always flukes. I once saw an Escort with 410k on it. As for your BMW... Duh, dude. A V12, seriously? No engine that tuned for performance will EVER last long. How many Ferraris do you know of that make it to 100k?
As a former Ford owner, they are assembled in the US of Canadian and Mexican parts, and all of the engineering is done by Volvo's engineers now (which is a good thing, Ford never was good at making things that didn't fall apart).
I switched to European cars (first a Volvo, and then an old Mercedes). American cars are disposable at 10yrs or 100k miles or less. I'll never buy one again.
Hi there, anon. I just bought and am in the process of restoring an '84 300TD. It has the OM617 diesel engine. Cast iron block, with a turbocharger. I bought it with 163k miles, and I personally know of at least three verifiable instances of the 300D series surviving to flip the odometer and keep going. At 163k, mine runs like a new car.
The OM617 has been described to me by mechanics as "basically bulletproof". It is pretty much the best diesel engine you can get, and arguably one of the best engines ever.
Mercedes lost a shit-ton of quality after they went to aluminum blocks from the cast iron. It took them a long time to engineer them back to some semblance of that former quality. Old Mercedes are remembered fondly for durability and quality, things you just don't see in modern cars. I expect no less than 500k on mine, and I'm aiming to flip the odometer myself.
I believe "intentionally crippled" is a valid euphemism for "broken". I still interoperate with a number of Windows machines, it's a giant gaping flaw to me that caused me to roll back from 10.7.
This has had an interesting side effect of making the older Mercedes and VW diesels much more desirable than they had been for quite a few years. Myself, I'm in the market for an MB 300TD for this exact reason... that engine, the 5cyl OM617 is legendarily durable and tolerant of funky mixtures of bio/petroleum-based fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
...Or more likely, "pass credit card / insurance card through slot".
Mercedes is worthy of it's reputation for reliability... provided you own one made before 1994, which is when their build quality started to nosedive.
You left out one major factor in diesel adoption: climate. In large swathes of the US (NY, PA, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota all come to mind) there are times of year where you simply wouldn't be able to start any but the hardiest of modern diesels. When I lived in NY, my older gasoline car barely wanted to start when it was -20F outside. If you are unfortunate enough to not have a heated garage (hello apartment dwellers!) then you just can't own a diesel if it regularly gets obscenely cold.
As someone who drives an old diesel Mercedes, let me just say: pffft. My 1984 300TD does 0-60 in about 180 seconds. Yes, three minutes. Entering all but the longest onramps can be a problem if I'm not already going 30MPH at the time. I love everything about that car, but it does tend to piss off the people behind me.
Good luck to 'em. That car is older than 80% of the kids at the local MB dealership!
No automatic updates for me, unless Mercedes wants to install a computer to update in my '84 300TD.
If they bought them because they were reliable, they wouldn't be transitioning over to other fleet cars, and other parts of the world wouldn't be avoiding them. Ford's one saving grace (if you discount loyalty to them because they used to be an American brand) is that they're cheap to own, and fairly cheap to fix.
In a passenger car, if having a diesel vs. a gasoline engine can lead to a 5x the life expectancy, then why NOT have one? Having known plenty of people with dodge trucks (though over the years, only one who had a diesel) I have a hard time believing that the rest of the damn thing didn't fall apart around the engine long before it reached that kind of mileage.
And respectfully, don't be such a dick. I hold a different opinion than you based on different experiences. I am not a mechanic, but I know more about what I drive and have driven than 90% of the people on the road. I disagree with you, but I will disagree respectfully.
You just made my point for me, sir. Not only having to do it, but considering it normal and acceptable!
No, I did not mistype. I bought it as-is, and all of those things were long past proper end-of-life. I tapped the air filter and large chunks of gunk fell out. The tires were bald, and one of them had a slow leak. The battery was so old (from 2003, I believe) that I had to jump it to drive it home from where I bought it. At less than $20, an oil change was a no-brainer since it was jet black when I checked it.
You assume I buy new. I always buy used to avoid the several thousand dollars a year that comprehensive insurance (mandated if you buy a car on a loan) would cost me. I suppose if you buy new and treat a vehicle as disposable after say, 250,000 miles, American cars are a good fit. That's how my father does it.
I'm no speed demon, nor have I ever been. I learned to drive in a Ford Escort, and that paltry 88hp was never too sluggish for me. I have an old diesel Mercedes now (which I absolutely love to death) and it's got a glacial 0-20 time (don't even ask about 0-60) and I don't try to rush it. I plan on getting 500k to a million miles out of that car, because I personally know at least three people that've done it.
10,000 on one engine (of my driving) and 20,000 on the replacement. If you're going to be pedantic, at least get that part right.
Just because *I* didn't drive it 30k while I owned it doesn't mean that those miles and wear aren't there... the Ford had 52k when I got it, and the Volvo 186k. And yet the Volvo didn't need work done when I got it and the Ford did. That fact in and of itself says a lot.
I see those Crown Vics with 200k+ and I raise you the Greek taxi fleets of old Diesel Mercedes, a number of which are still in service with well over a million miles.
My definition of "reliable" and yours clearly differ by a very large margin. Fords are cheap. When they break, they just buy another one for the fleet. And police departments use them because they're what Ford offers with the "enforcer" engines. It's not the same ones you get in stock CV's.
I admit I had abnormally bad luck. But the engineering quality difference isn't any less for it.
Let me expand on why I hold that opinion.
Shop around, buy low-milage used 1994 Ford (52k) for $2500. Put $500 into it immediately to fix various small problems with it (thermostat, couple of other issues). Drive it gently less than 10,000 miles, blow engine. Replace engine, drive further 20,000 miles, blow engine again. Experience #1.
After Ford blows up, buy 1992 Volvo with 186k (3.5x milage as the Ford) for $950. Put in battery, air filter, oil change, and fresh gas. Drive it for 2000 miles without the slightest problem, at which point I bought my current vehicle (1984 Mercedes) and no longer need the Volvo. Experience #2.
I paid significantly less for the Volvo than I did for it's predecessor, and it ran needing NO MAJOR SERVICE (and continues to run, though it is no longer registered because insuring two cars is ruinously expensive) for the entire time I owned it, with 3.5x as many miles on it.
I really used to believe that American cars were quality, but owning them for years, and now the stark contrast with European engineering has been just staggering.
Didn't the Crown Vic of that era also have that engine, or was that a V8? Because I know there's plenty of those with a propensity for cracking head gaskets (just like both Fords I owned did).
This has not been my experience. When I drove domestics, I had nothing but problems, and now that I've owned as many European cars (admittedly, brands known for reliability) as I have American, I would never buy American again.
Also based on experience is price of repairs (higher for new cars than it is for older ones) and general feel of cheapness in construction in ALL newer cars is why I drive an '84 Mercedes.
Thousands still on the road... out of the millions sold. And I have never met anyone with firsthand experience with a Corvette with over 100k on it.
Sounds like exactly what I'd expect from them.
It's a pity Mercedes has gone the route of performance over reliability and quality lately. They have fallen quite a way from the days when their iron-block diesels were considered THE car to own for longevity (I happen to own one).
How many engines have you gone through to get to that point?
I had several mid-1990s American cars, and they were without exception, junk. Replacing the engine (or a serious overhaul) sounds right in line with what I have come to expect from American cars. The Volvo (a 1992 960) I bought for $900 needed only routine attention (oil change, air filter, battery, tires) and I drove it from 186k to 188k without the slightest hiccup. I would not trust an American-made car with 186k on it, because it's either at or near it's designed end-of-life.
There are always flukes. I once saw an Escort with 410k on it. As for your BMW... Duh, dude. A V12, seriously? No engine that tuned for performance will EVER last long. How many Ferraris do you know of that make it to 100k?
As a former Ford owner, they are assembled in the US of Canadian and Mexican parts, and all of the engineering is done by Volvo's engineers now (which is a good thing, Ford never was good at making things that didn't fall apart).
I switched to European cars (first a Volvo, and then an old Mercedes). American cars are disposable at 10yrs or 100k miles or less. I'll never buy one again.
Hi there, anon. I just bought and am in the process of restoring an '84 300TD. It has the OM617 diesel engine. Cast iron block, with a turbocharger. I bought it with 163k miles, and I personally know of at least three verifiable instances of the 300D series surviving to flip the odometer and keep going. At 163k, mine runs like a new car.
The OM617 has been described to me by mechanics as "basically bulletproof". It is pretty much the best diesel engine you can get, and arguably one of the best engines ever.
Mercedes lost a shit-ton of quality after they went to aluminum blocks from the cast iron. It took them a long time to engineer them back to some semblance of that former quality. Old Mercedes are remembered fondly for durability and quality, things you just don't see in modern cars. I expect no less than 500k on mine, and I'm aiming to flip the odometer myself.
I believe "intentionally crippled" is a valid euphemism for "broken". I still interoperate with a number of Windows machines, it's a giant gaping flaw to me that caused me to roll back from 10.7.
In 10.3/10.4 and later, it connected and worked fine.
Does it fix SAMBA, which was (and still is) horribly broken in 10.7?
This has had an interesting side effect of making the older Mercedes and VW diesels much more desirable than they had been for quite a few years. Myself, I'm in the market for an MB 300TD for this exact reason... that engine, the 5cyl OM617 is legendarily durable and tolerant of funky mixtures of bio/petroleum-based fuel.