Random Thoughts Thread

[balthazar]

My issue with Wiki is their criteria (and I may have stated this before, but it's come to the forefront in writing a book)- they only use published sources but ANY published source is technically OK, even if it's factual garbage. Plus, depending on when you may happen to check an entry vs. when it may have been purposefully vandalized or erroneously edited, once again there's little assurance you're getting hard factual data.

I started one page on an automaker and sourced my data from a published book, but it was a 'university press' publication without an ISBN. Subsequent edits deleted my information because of that irrelevant fact (they couldn't look the book up I assume). Yet who looks up the facts in the books they can look up?

No money for Wiki from me.

[David]

Colleges make it very clear that WIKI is NOT a reliable source of info though many use it for such and I believe not all but most is valid information. Sadly, Wiki really needs to find a better way to become a valid source of Info for the masses.

[Robert Hall]

For my usual use cases, I find Wikipedia quite useful.   It's definitely lacking in detail on certain subjects and I've seen factual errors.  But I don't have to go to a library and dig through encyclopedias or specialized books when I need to quickly find facts like the wheelbase of a 463 series G-wagen, Robin Trower's discography after 1973, the engine choices on an '89 Regal, facts about the towns on Lake Constance,  or the county seat of Knox County, Oh...

[oldshurst442]

Im in both camps of in favour of Wiki and not in favour of Wiki.

Wiki is NOT a reliable source of info.  Especially when one wants to have 100% pure unadulterated proof of something being an event, historical or otherwise, or specifications of numbers of something.  

It is however, a valuable site for information that gets close enough to the truth to casually get you by.  Like how @Robert Hall was saying. 

But like @balthazar is saying, Wiki is not the site you go to either. 

I use Wiki for fast info. I also use Wiki to confirm information that I already knew but forgot or I wasnt quite sure of.  But when I do use Wiki for fast information, Im also conscience and cautious to realize and understand that the information I got may be erroneous somewhat. Close to the truth, but flawed in someway or other...

I think its good that its free for us to use when we want to access it. I think its cool and understand the reasons behind  the founder of the site does not want to go the advertising route (as that will most probably skew information even worse as it is now in its current state) but I certainly wont be giving MY money to a site that may contain false information either.

I would prefer to pay thousands of dollars to my very own personalized home library containing all kinds of encyclopedias  and magazines and then give lots and lots of money to my local neighborhood school and municipal library to maintain and acquire lots and lots of educational books, the old school way the way it used to be, than to give a measly dollar to Wikipedia...

 

No...I aint a Boomer that does not like technology.  I love the internet and what the internet means for humanity going forward. Instant communication and transfer of information.  

What took centuries and decades and years and months and days to transfer and share information now only takes seconds... 

The internet is humanity's latest and greatest invention that made us evolve and change the way we live for ever like how we invented tools and the wheel and fire....

But, sometimes, the internet and its information that it contains, and the way we use all that, is seriously flawed...and while Wiki is awesome...Wiki is like your know-it-all uncle or dad... you realize that your know-it-all uncle or your know-it-all dad maybe wrong more often than not...

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by oldshurst442

[balthazar]

It strikes me; even tho we're in an age where information is instantaneous and everywhere, presidential candidates somehow apparently still need $250 million or $500 million "to get their message out". Like there's really any new messages.

This was my uncle, who passed in '96. This account likely refers to the 1970s-80s : 

I want a nation-level cap on campaign donations/spending. If you can't get your message out and do some traveling/staffing on $10 million (limited to 365 days before election day), you're not qualified to hold a national office.

[* $10 million is a random figure, but I don't think -again; in the Information Age- that's it's too far from the possible.]

Edited January 1, 2020 by balthazar

[David]

@balthazar Totally agree +1,000,000,000,000 times on the abuse of campaign donations. I honestly think 180 days is plenty of time for re-election and election campaigns and not what Potus 45 has turned into almost 4yr constant campaign donation / spending.

In regards to Wiki, @balthazar @Robert Hall @oldshurst442 I love the fact that we have NOT lost our encyclopedia sources. https://www.britannica.com/

 

[Robert Hall]

17 minutes ago, dfelt said:

 

In regards to Wiki, @balthazar @Robert Hall @oldshurst442 I love the fact that we have NOT lost our encyclopedia sources. https://www.britannica.com/

 

Interesting..didn't realize encyclopedias still existed...good to know they have a digital edition.  I love reading and learning, but have long moved beyond the need for paper.. 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Robert Hall

[David]

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Interesting..didn't realize encyclopedias still existed...good to know they have a digital edition.  I love reading and learning, but have long moved beyond the need for paper.. 

Totally agree, This is probably one of the best well sourced Wiki pages about the history and the relevant digital version today of Encyclopedias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

I love the clear factual sources on this wiki page.

If I was to have kids today, as my son is 32 and Daughter is 36, I would sign up for the digital Britannica access as you constantly have the latest valid sources for school use.

Makes a great gift to Nieces and nephews too.

[oldshurst442]

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

If I was to have kids today, as my son is 32 and Daughter is 36, I would sign up for the digital Britannica access as you constantly have the latest valid sources for school use.

Makes a great gift to Nieces and nephews too.

yup!!!

I nix my comment about old school personal libraries and me forking over money to fund me one of these.

Ill take a hint about what @Robert Hall said...

1 hour ago, Robert Hall said:

Interesting..didn't realize encyclopedias still existed...good to know they have a digital edition.  I love reading and learning, but have long moved beyond the need for paper.. 

and I too, could move on from paper and as long as digitally, there are reliable sources to info such as digital Britannica...then Im good. 

[Robert Hall]

That said, I do still have a lot of print books and magazines.  Subscribed to multiple car magazines in print for decades before switching to digital editions.  I used to buy heavy $50-75 soft bound books to learn specific software technologies before switching to PDF editions.  I do miss strolling through computer bookstores ( RIP Computer Literacy, Englewood, Co) and physical bookstores (B&N is still around, but I was a long time Borders customer)....

Edited January 1, 2020 by Robert Hall

[Drew Dowdell]

Happy New Year All!

[David]

Happy New Years all!

Celebration of the day with our traditional Korean New Years day soup.

This is a one month love affair that my wife and I do. Over the course of the month of December, hand made mundo aka pot stickers, hand made rice cakes, home made beef broth made with 3 types of beef and beef bones. Seasonings as it cooks, strained to be a clear rich flavorful broth that has rice cakes, mundo, egg, near fat free well seasoned shredded flank steak, sesame seeds on top.

Love this soup.

[ocnblu]

Tradition in my area is roast pork and sauerkraut with mashed potatoes for NYD meal.  Mom also adds apples and chicken thighs to the roasting pot.  I took rolls and a fruit cake for dessert.  Three of us had plenty.  Now I'm home and on the edge of comatose.  HNY to the group.

[balthazar]

My buddy offered to buy the rear tires & rims off my B-59 (I never got around to buying the fronts, and since; I've decided to change the rim design).
There's a particular style of aftermarket rim I like/want- the old Hallibrand type kidney beans. A number of different companies make similar versions. But try and go online to look up these other company's versions without knowing the name; there's like 800 billion rims out there. It's impossible online.
Bu-uuuut, if you have a Summit or Jegs paper catalog handy; BOOM! there's like 4 pages of 6 or 8 companies, and a couple versions right there. A good example of where catalogs still overrule digital.

[David]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

My buddy offered to buy the rear tires & rims off my B-59 (I never got around to buying the fronts, and since; I've decided to change the rim design).
There's a particular style of aftermarket rim I like/want- the old Hallibrand type kidney beans. A number of different companies make similar versions. But try and go online to look up these other company's versions without knowing the name; there's like 800 billion rims out there. It's impossible online.
Bu-uuuut, if you have a Summit or Jegs paper catalog handy; BOOM! there's like 4 pages of 6 or 8 companies, and a couple versions right there. A good example of where catalogs still overrule digital.

Or just being more specific in the names / terms used to find what you want.

[balthazar]

4 hours ago, balthazar said:

...without knowing the name; there's like 800 billion rims out there.

 

[surreal1272]

Well, after 33 hours and 2200 miles on the road, I can safely say the Flex rocks for long drives. Left Phoenix on Sunday and showed up in Greensboro, NC Monday night with about 45 minutes of sleep in the middle lol. The Flex never flinched and it never wore me out. Even the cats I took with me, did great (save for puking after coming down the winding part of east I-40 after crossing into NC. Couldn’t blame them for that one. Any more of it, and I would have done the same damn thing lol!

[ccap41]

34 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Well, after 33 hours and 2200 miles on the road, I can safely say the Flex rocks for long drives. Left Phoenix on Sunday and showed up in Greensboro, NC Monday night with about 45 minutes of sleep in the middle lol. The Flex never flinched and it never wore me out. Even the cats I took with me, did great (save for puking after coming down the winding part of east I-40 after crossing into NC. Couldn’t blame them for that one. Any more of it, and I would have done the same damn thing lol!

Did you make that trip solo??? That's quite the drive to do on your own and 45 minutes of sleep says it! 

[surreal1272]

8 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Did you make that trip solo??? That's quite the drive to do on your own and 45 minutes of sleep says it! 

Yes. I have done this trip (in one direction or the other, sometimes both) five times now. For some reason, something flips the “truck driver” switch in me and I just keep driving. I get pretty dialed in for the most part. My wife said I must have been a truck driver in a past life lol. Having said that, I’m hoping to not have to do it again anytime soon if ever. At 47 years old, it is getting more laborious on parts of my body.

 

This was the start of the trip up I-17 from Phoenix to Flagstaff.

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by surreal1272

[Robert Hall]

Nice...reminds me of my drive from Phoenix to Cleveland (2100 miles) w/ 6 dogs in June 2017 in my '14 Grand Cherokee.  Did it in about 50 hours straight through  (about 5 hrs of stops for gas, food, getting the dogs out, dozing).   I-40 was so boring going across the void...     I'll never do a drive like that again without stopping to stay in a hotel for a full nights sleep each day.    It was physically and mentally exhausting. 

My sister is currently on a 1200 mile drive from Cleveland to West Palm Beach, Florida for a 4 month contract gig down there (she's done with the weekly flying for work, just too worn out from it).   

[ccap41]

@surreal1272 What kind of fuel economy did you get on that adventure? How quick/slow were you going(most of the trip, at least)? N/A 3.5? 

[surreal1272]

11 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

@surreal1272 What kind of fuel economy did you get on that adventure? How quick/slow were you going(most of the trip, at least)? N/A 3.5? 

Averaged 21-22 which is under the EPA but it was also loaded to the hilt and I was averaging anywhere from 76-86 depending on location. No complaints whatsoever given the circumstances. 

[Robert Hall]

That's good mileage...on my trip had my Jeep pretty loaded, couldn't see out the back window.    I averaged 22-26, even saw a 28 average at one point (on I-40 across Texas and Oklahoma, flat).   Not bad for a 3.6 V6/8 spd auto and 5000+ lbs.. 

[ccap41]

12 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Averaged 21-22 which is under the EPA but it was also loaded to the hilt and I was averaging anywhere from 76-86 depending on location. No complaints whatsoever given the circumstances. 

Yeah at those speeds and loaded up, it sounds very respectable, also including the climbs through mountain passes through thin air. 

Does that have the n/a 3.5 then? 

[David]

Consumers Reports of the 2020 Models likely to have the highest potential to break down posted by MSN. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/these-new-cars-are-most-likely-to-break-down/ss-AAK4SZK?li=BBnb7Kz#image=1

1. Audi A8 – CR score = 67
2. Audi A6 – CR score = 65
3. Chevrolet Traverse – CR score = 65
4. BMW 3 Series – CR score = 63
5. Lincoln Nautilus – CR score = 63
6. Acura RDX – CR score = 61
7. Toyota C-HR – CR score = 61
8. Volkswagen Atlas – CR score = 61
9. Volkswagen Tiguan – CR score = 61
10. Chrysler Pacifica – CR score = 59
11. Honda Passport – CR score = 59
12. Acura MDX – CR score = 58
13. Ram 1500 – CR score = 58
14. Ford F-150 – CR score = 57
15. Tesla Model X – CR score = 57
16. Cadillac XT6 - – CR score = 56
17. Chevrolet Silverado – CR score = 54
18. GMC Sierra 1500 – CR score = 54
19. Land Rover Range Rover – CR score = 54
20. Land Rover Range Rover Sport – CR score = 54
21. Land Rover Range Rover Velar – CR score = 54
22. Chevrolet Camaro – CR score = 53
23. Cadillac XT4 – CR score = 52
24. Lexus LS – CR score = 52
25. Alfa Romeo Giulia – CR score = 51
26. Land Rover Discovery – CR score = 51
27. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque – CR score = 45
28. Land Rover Discovery Sport – CR score = 44
29. Cadillac Escalade – CR score = 41
30. Chevrolet Colorado – CR score = 37
31. GMC Canyon – CR score = 37
32. Fiat 500X – CR score = 35
33. Fiat 500L – CR score = 29
34. Jeep Wrangler – CR score = 28

Consumers Report is surprised by the popular sales of Wranglers with such a poor reliability as the #1 auto to avoid in the US.

[ccap41]

The Traverse is the most surprising on the list, to me. 

[surreal1272]

2 hours ago, Robert Hall said:

That's good mileage...on my trip had my Jeep pretty loaded, couldn't see out the back window.    I averaged 22-26, even saw a 28 average at one point (on I-40 across Texas and Oklahoma, flat).   Not bad for a 3.6 V6/8 spd auto and 5000+ lbs.. 

I should add that I am not including the portion up I-17. You know what that stretch of road does to gas mileage I’m sure. 

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Yeah at those speeds and loaded up, it sounds very respectable, also including the climbs through mountain passes through thin air. 

Does that have the n/a 3.5 then? 

Yes the 3.5 NA. Couldn’t find an ecoboost with reasonable miles. 

[Robert Hall]

Just now, surreal1272 said:

I should add that I am not including the portion up I-17. You know what that stretch of road does to gas mileage I’m sure. 

Oh yeah...  I-40 from Flag to OKC is pretty flat and straight, that's where I got my best mileage...

[balthazar]

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Consumers Report is surprised by the popular sales of Wranglers with such a poor reliability as the #1 auto to avoid in the US.

Confused; you mean on a list of the most likely to break down, #34 is the most likely?

[Robert Hall]

13 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Confused; you mean on a list of the most likely to break down, #34 is the most likely?

I think so..it's weird, but the lower the CR score, the more troublesome I think...Alfa, Land Rover and Fiat are down there, they are traditionally known for unreliability...

Edited January 3, 2020 by Robert Hall

[ykX]

12 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Confused; you mean on a list of the most likely to break down, #34 is the most likely?

34 is CRs overall rating out of 100.  It includes number of considerations, one of them reliability.

Actually, I am really surprised by some of the cars on the list, some of them were not rated so poorly just last year,

[ccap41]

21 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Confused; you mean on a list of the most likely to break down, #34 is the most likely?

Oh weird, I assumed the other order but I see how it is flipped..

[Robert Hall]

Surprised to see the Escalade and Canyon/Colorado way down there...I wonder if there are a few specific common trouble areas with those... no surprise about Land Rover; they've been known for poor reliability for decades... 

[balthazar]

Well, seems ‘stupid is as CR does’; does that then mean that the audi is the MOST reliable OR are these the only cars they evaluated? Does that mean the scale isn’t ‘0-100’ but ‘34-65’?? Is a score of 65 “very good” or even the best? What about the other 345 vehicles not on the list?
CR = wackadoodle.

[frogger]

9 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Well, seems ‘stupid is as CR does’; does that then mean that the audi is the MOST reliable OR are these the only cars they evaluated? Does that mean the scale isn’t ‘0-100’ but ‘34-65’?? Is a score of 65 “very good” or even the best? What about the other 345 vehicles not on the list?
CR = wackadoodle.

It's MSN that parsed out the CR results and posted the article.  This is just the worst 65 vehicles from the CR results, the others scored higher than 65.

 

 

 

 

 

[David]

2 hours ago, balthazar said:

Confused; you mean on a list of the most likely to break down, #34 is the most likely?

Yes, I could not get the auto numbering to go in reverse order. #34 is actually #1 for the least reliable auto they expect of the 2020 model years. 

A score of 100 is perfect and means you will probably not have any problems with the auto.

39 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Well, seems ‘stupid is as CR does’; does that then mean that the audi is the MOST reliable OR are these the only cars they evaluated? Does that mean the scale isn’t ‘0-100’ but ‘34-65’?? Is a score of 65 “very good” or even the best? What about the other 345 vehicles not on the list?
CR = wackadoodle.

This was CR's top 34 least reliable auto's, they have not released their top 34 most reliable auto's yet.

[balthazar]

My 6.6L Duramax 2500HD / 5-spd gets 15.5-16 MPG. Best it's ever gotten on an 80% tank of highway driving was about 18.2.

The '20 Silverado 3.0L Duramax / 10-spd is rated at 23 city / 29 highway (4WD). For me and my rambling, it's probably be 24-24.5 MPG.

3.0L Duramax is $3890 (10-spd is no charge). 24-16= 8 MPG better.
On 11,000 miles/yr, that's 1375 less gallons, at $3/gal, a yearly savings of $4,125.
3.0L Duramax would pay itself off in less than 12 months.

[ocnblu]

15 hours ago, ccap41 said:

The Traverse is the most surprising on the list, to me. 

I'm surprised the Colorado/Canyon are on that list.  They first reappeared in the fall of 2014, and haven't had any major changes since.  YOU MEAN TO TELL ME, GM hasn't worked through any initial bugs YET?  I'll bet the bulk of complaints/troubles are coming from the 8-speed automatic's behavior.  My truck is closing in on 10k miles, and the transmission seems to be smoothing out, the complaints I had about it are going away.  Maybe it takes that long for it to "learn" how to behave.  Weird.

[frogger]

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

My 6.6L Duramax 2500HD / 5-spd gets 15.5-16 MPG. Best it's ever gotten on an 80% tank of highway driving was about 18.2.

The '20 Silverado 3.0L Duramax / 10-spd is rated at 23 city / 29 highway (4WD). For me and my rambling, it's probably be 24-24.5 MPG.

3.0L Duramax is $3890 (10-spd is no charge). 24-16= 8 MPG better.
On 11,000 miles/yr, that's 1375 less gallons, at $3/gal, a yearly savings of $4,125.
3.0L Duramax would pay itself off in less than 12 months.

Math seems completely random/off for only 11000 miles a year.  To save $4125 annually you would need to save $80 or so a week on gas.

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2020 by frogger

[balthazar]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

Math seems completely random/off for only 11000 miles a year.  To save $4125 annually you would need to save $80 or so a week on gas.

Umm... I meant 110,000 miles/year.
No - you're correct; I was way off. 😬

• 11,000 / 16 MPG = 687 gals/yr.
• 11,000 / 24 MPG = 458 gals/yr.
difference of 229 gal @ $3/gal is $687.
$3980 (price of 3.0L DM) / $687 is 5.7 years.
That's still a pretty damned good metric for me (considering this truck I've had for 13 years and the prior one for 12).

[ocnblu]

Dad traded his old Impala for a brand new 2020 Equinox 2LT AWD (which means it's a 2.0t).  Very happy for him, he deserves it.

[balthazar]

One for Bill :

[daves87rs]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:58 PM, dfelt said:

Consumers Reports of the 2020 Models likely to have the highest potential to break down posted by MSN. https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/these-new-cars-are-most-likely-to-break-down/ss-AAK4SZK?li=BBnb7Kz#image=1

1. Audi A8 – CR score = 67
2. Audi A6 – CR score = 65
3. Chevrolet Traverse – CR score = 65
4. BMW 3 Series – CR score = 63
5. Lincoln Nautilus – CR score = 63
6. Acura RDX – CR score = 61
7. Toyota C-HR – CR score = 61
8. Volkswagen Atlas – CR score = 61
9. Volkswagen Tiguan – CR score = 61
10. Chrysler Pacifica – CR score = 59
11. Honda Passport – CR score = 59
12. Acura MDX – CR score = 58
13. Ram 1500 – CR score = 58
14. Ford F-150 – CR score = 57
15. Tesla Model X – CR score = 57
16. Cadillac XT6 - – CR score = 56
17. Chevrolet Silverado – CR score = 54
18. GMC Sierra 1500 – CR score = 54
19. Land Rover Range Rover – CR score = 54
20. Land Rover Range Rover Sport – CR score = 54
21. Land Rover Range Rover Velar – CR score = 54
22. Chevrolet Camaro – CR score = 53
23. Cadillac XT4 – CR score = 52
24. Lexus LS – CR score = 52
25. Alfa Romeo Giulia – CR score = 51
26. Land Rover Discovery – CR score = 51
27. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque – CR score = 45
28. Land Rover Discovery Sport – CR score = 44
29. Cadillac Escalade – CR score = 41
30. Chevrolet Colorado – CR score = 37
31. GMC Canyon – CR score = 37
32. Fiat 500X – CR score = 35
33. Fiat 500L – CR score = 29
34. Jeep Wrangler – CR score = 28

Consumers Report is surprised by the popular sales of Wranglers with such a poor reliability as the #1 auto to avoid in the US.

GM's baby trucks on the list? I know a few with solid trucks.....

[ocnblu]

7 hours ago, balthazar said:

One for Bill :

Hey now, that's neat!  And VERY local!

[trinacriabob]

@dfelt Glad to see the Dodge Charger (and Chrysler 300) are not on the list.  I guess practice makes perfect.

Here's a "concept" I learned within the last year:

A dog breeder or expert coined the word "velcro dog" - this means a dog that is always at your side.  It generally doesn't go off and entertain itself in another room of the house or want to escape.  It sticks to your side ... not literally and not getting in your way.  "Velcro dogs" tend to be herding or working dogs, such as Border Collies, Australian Shepherds, etc.  When you really like your dog and it's not dumb or annoying, it being a "velcro dog" is not a problem!

[Robert Hall]

2 minutes ago, trinacriabob said:

@dfelt Glad to see the Dodge Charger (and Chrysler 300) are not on the list.  I guess practice makes perfect.

Here's a "concept" I learned within the last year:

A dog breeder or expert coined the word "velcro dog" - this means a dog that is always at your side.  It generally doesn't go off and entertain itself in another room of the house or want to escape.  It sticks to your side ... not literally and not getting in your way.  "Velcro dogs" tend to be herding or working dogs, such as Border Collies, Australian Shepherds, etc.  When you really like your dog and it's not dumb or annoying, it being a "velcro dog" is not a problem!

Terriers are often that way... my pack follows me around the house like an entourage, can't go to the bathroom or watch TV without them being close. 

[ccap41]

On 1/4/2020 at 9:16 AM, balthazar said:

Umm... I meant 110,000 miles/year.
No - you're correct; I was way off. 😬

• 11,000 / 16 MPG = 687 gals/yr.
• 11,000 / 24 MPG = 458 gals/yr.
difference of 229 gal @ $3/gal is $687.
$3980 (price of 3.0L DM) / $687 is 5.7 years.
That's still a pretty damned good metric for me (considering this truck I've had for 13 years and the prior one for 12).

I don't think it is anything major but add in the cost of DEF. I think it's supposed to be roughly a full tank per oil change but I believe that can vary by quite a bit based on weather and driving. 

[frogger]

On 1/4/2020 at 10:16 AM, balthazar said:

Umm... I meant 110,000 miles/year.
No - you're correct; I was way off. 😬

• 11,000 / 16 MPG = 687 gals/yr.
• 11,000 / 24 MPG = 458 gals/yr.
difference of 229 gal @ $3/gal is $687.
$3980 (price of 3.0L DM) / $687 is 5.7 years.
That's still a pretty damned good metric for me (considering this truck I've had for 13 years and the prior one for 12).

Is diesel fuel pretty close in price to unleaded there?  Here I believe it is about 5% more expensive half the year and 10% cheaper the rest of it, but I haven't paid attention much the last few years.

 

 

[ykX]

23 minutes ago, frogger said:

Is diesel fuel pretty close in price to unleaded there?  Here I believe it is about 5% more expensive half the year and 10% cheaper the rest of it, but I haven't paid attention much the last few years.

 

 

In US diesel is close in price to a premium gas.

That's why when I was looking at diesel cars it didn't made sense  financially, you get better fuel economy with diesel but it is destroyed because of a big difference in price of diesel vs regular unleaded.

@balthazar you didn't take into account the higher price of diesel in your calculations.

11000mi/16mi/g= 688 gallons

Today's lowest price of regular near me is $2.41, so at today's price it is $1658 

11000mi/24mi/g=458 gallons

Today's lowest price of diesel is $2.95, so at today's price it will be $1351

You will be saving $307 a year on diesel, if the price difference of diesel truck is $3980, it will take you almost 13 years to make it up on today's gas prices.

Edited January 6, 2020 by ykX

[balthazar]

• I forget about DEF; I have a pre-DEF Duramax. I agree that the difference would be minor, numbers-wise.

• I used $3/gal of diesel in my example but I've been paying roughly between 2.75 and 2.90 for I think at least a year (would have to check my log). Gasbuddy says my regular-use station is 2.59 for regular (credit) and 2.93 for diesel today.

But I was comparing a 3.0L DM to my 6.6L DM, not against gas. Right now, I'm building my case to replace my truck, and am intrigued at the 3.0L. I do like the longevity of a diesel. 😎
Kinda seems counter-productive to replace my truck with one that gets the same MPG if there are other options, but your point numbers-wise is totally valid. 🤔

Edited January 6, 2020 by balthazar