Parts Catalog Accessories Catalog How To Articles Tech Forums
Call Pelican Parts at 888-280-7799
Shopping Cart Cart | Project List | Order Status | Help



Go Back   PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Discussions > Off-Topic Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-15-2008, 05:46 PM
92 300D 2.5L OBK #59
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,108
Diesel compared to Gas Cost Per Mile

Messing around...
I've got 2 vehicles 98 Ford Explorer (20 MPG)and 92 Mercedes 300D 2.5 (30 MPG)

I was figuring out what car is cheaper to drive and What the compared fuel prices would have to be. I was surprised.

Ford @ 3.29 Gal. was .17 cents mile
Mercedes @3.89 was .13 cents mile

To cost the same per mile.
Gas @ 3.30 gallon diesel would have to cost 4.79
Diesel @ 3.89 gallon gas would have to cost 2.68

I did up a little spread sheet that will compare 2 vehicles.

Let me know what you think.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf Vehicles Compared.pdf (29.0 KB, 101 views)
__________________
92 300D 2.5L OM602 OBK #59
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-15-2008, 05:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Blue Point, NY
Posts: 25,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobodaclown View Post

Let me know what you think.
I'm amazed that you can average 20 mpg in mixed driving with the Explorer.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-15-2008, 05:57 PM
Hogweed's Avatar
Watching SB LII every day
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in the back of beyond a.k.a. Pa.
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobodaclown View Post
Messing around...
I've got 2 vehicles 98 Ford Explorer (20 MPG)and 92 Mercedes 300D 2.5 (30 MPG)

I was figuring out what car is cheaper to drive and What the compared fuel prices would have to be. I was surprised.

Ford @ 3.29 Gal. was .17 cents mile
Mercedes @3.89 was .13 cents mile

To cost the same per mile.
Gas @ 3.30 gallon diesel would have to cost 4.79
Diesel @ 3.89 gallon gas would have to cost 2.68

I did up a little spread sheet that will compare 2 vehicles.

Let me know what you think.
i did the same a while back b/t my 300se (19 mpg) and 300sd (26 mpg); i was telling my cousin and he said "that's over 20% better". from then on i just calculte the cost difference and if diesel is under 20% more then it is more economical. e.g. if regluar is 3.30 then as long as diesel is less than 3.96 (.66 cents = 20%) it is more economical, but i still have a problem "paying more" at the pump for fuel!! go figure
__________________
0o==o0

James 4:8

"...let us put aside the blindness of mind of those who can conceive of nothing higher than what is known through the senses"
-Saint Gregory Palamas, ---Discourse on the Holy Transfiguration of Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ


Centrally located in North East Central Pa.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-15-2008, 06:23 PM
t walgamuth's Avatar
dieselarchitect
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lafayette Indiana
Posts: 35,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Carlton View Post
I'm amazed that you can average 20 mpg in mixed driving with the Explorer.
x2.

Nice comparison, though. It makes me feel better.

I had this discussion the other day with a guy at the Y. He pulls a horse trailer with a gm tahoe or sub with the 8.2 liter gasser. I think he said he gets like 8 mpg. Towing my travel trailer I get at least 12 with my cummins. I bet I would get better with his horse trailer since it has less frontal area.

Around town I get 14. I bet he's lucky to get 8 around town.

And after using the trucks for a while the diesels hold their value a whole lot more.

Tom W
__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-15-2008, 08:54 PM
POS's Avatar
POS POS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,506
My short math last week came out to about 6 mpg - i.e., a 23mpg gas car will cost the same in fuel as a 29mpg diesel car.
__________________
- Brian


1989 500SEL Euro
1966 250SE Cabriolet
1958 BMW Isetta 600
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-15-2008, 09:20 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: around Charlotte NC
Posts: 578
Reviewing options too

It seems to me that 5 years ago a vehicle that got 25-30 mpg was really viewed as really economical. I was thrilled with the mileage from my old SDL and the 300SD I have now. Combine that with similar gas and diesel costs and the MB option was great. Add in the chance to buy a sub- $10K car that will last a long time (used MB diesel) and it was an easy decision. The way I see it there are 3 sets of costs to car: fuel, cost of the car ( with depreciation), and operating expenses like maintenance and repairs. MB did great on fuel, great on cost / depreciation, and good enough on operating expenses.

Two big changes have come about for me. Fuel has just about doubled (with diesel getting the worst part of the deal), and so has my driving. I recently accepted a job that has a 140+ mile commute a day, so mileage and cost has become more important to me. I'm starting to look at what will be available in the 40 mpg range. I'm thinking that will become the new entry point for "economical" cars. I'm starting to do the math to see what one of the new 40+ mpg Honda Accord diesels will do vs. a gas solution. No answers yet but certainly looking to see what options are out there. Another option may be one of the late 90's MB diesels that get in the mid 30's mpg. Gotta figure in cost, maintenance, and fuel.

No answers yet, but certainly looking at the figures.

Chuck
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-15-2008, 09:28 PM
nate300d's Avatar
What did I just do?
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Edgerton OH 43517
Posts: 366
I was playing with some numbers based on fueleconogy.gov

1999 E-Class
E300 26MGP combined adjusted for new EPA mileage ratings
E320 21MGP combined adjusted for new EPA mileage ratings
The E300 MPG is 123.8% of the E320

$3.49/gas x 123.8% = $4.32/diesel
Diesel is still less

2005 VW Jetta, manual
TDI 35MGP combined adjusted for new EPA mileage ratings
4 cylinder 24MGP combined adjusted for new EPA mileage ratings
The TDI MPG is 145.8% of the 4 cylinder

$3.49/gas x 145.8% = $5.09/diesel
Diesel is still less
__________________
Current:
1985 300D aka Miss Margaret
1991 300SE aka Alarice
1995 SL320 aka Samantha
1997 K1500 Silverado
Past:
1999 E300 ex-wife got it and let her son ruin it
1984 190 2.3 ex-wife got it and let her son destroy a great car
1985 300D (CA version) aka Maybelline lost to deer at high speed.
1981 300D aka Madeline (went to salvage at near 400k) rusty, yet best car I ever drove
Wishlist:
McFarlan TV6 (only a few privately owned)
ReVere with Rochester engine
1917 Premier (only one left)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-15-2008, 11:43 PM
92 300D 2.5L OBK #59
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,108
Its kinda funny. I really like my Explorer but our Mercedes is growing on me. Got it in 2000. 187000 miles on it and it runs great. Just I'm getting cheaper in my old age.
__________________
92 300D 2.5L OM602 OBK #59
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-16-2008, 01:18 AM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 678
I might buy a Porsche 914 that gets 35mpg. Car costs 1200 bucks. Seems like a no brainer. Other vehicles (6.3 & 6.9) are a joke, my Jeep gets 20. For each gallon I burn, the 914 goes 75% further. Assume gas is $3.15 for now. If I drive 1000 miles I burn 50 gallons in the Jeep, 28.6 in the 914. I save 21.4 gallons, or 67.5 dollars. So after 17,800 miles the 914 has paid for itself.

Point being even though it is easy to find a car that is more economical that another, the total cost of ownership is important. For example, if you bought a car that gets twice the MPG as your old car, but costs twice as much, will it really pay out? Of course there are a lot of other variables, such as the fact you might be wanting to replace the car anyway, etc.

I remember seeing a news story on TV about a couple in East Texas who put a windmill on the farm to generate electricity. I think they said the might cut their usage by 1/3 to 1/2. But the windmill cost $55,000 and the pretty much knew it would never pay for itself.

I know they thought they are being green, but all of that comes at a price. This is why the U.S. will be on fossil fuels for a long time. Changing technologies will be EXPENSIVE, and we Americans don't like to be told what to do, much less having to spend more money to do it.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-16-2008, 08:56 AM
mrhills0146
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSchmidt View Post
It seems to me that 5 years ago a vehicle that got 25-30 mpg was really viewed as really economical. I was thrilled with the mileage from my old SDL and the 300SD I have now. Combine that with similar gas and diesel costs and the MB option was great. Add in the chance to buy a sub- $10K car that will last a long time (used MB diesel) and it was an easy decision. The way I see it there are 3 sets of costs to car: fuel, cost of the car ( with depreciation), and operating expenses like maintenance and repairs. MB did great on fuel, great on cost / depreciation, and good enough on operating expenses.

Two big changes have come about for me. Fuel has just about doubled (with diesel getting the worst part of the deal), and so has my driving. I recently accepted a job that has a 140+ mile commute a day, so mileage and cost has become more important to me. I'm starting to look at what will be available in the 40 mpg range. I'm thinking that will become the new entry point for "economical" cars. I'm starting to do the math to see what one of the new 40+ mpg Honda Accord diesels will do vs. a gas solution. No answers yet but certainly looking to see what options are out there. Another option may be one of the late 90's MB diesels that get in the mid 30's mpg. Gotta figure in cost, maintenance, and fuel.

No answers yet, but certainly looking at the figures.

Chuck
The expenses you will incur with a new Accord Diesel:

- Depreciation
- Interest
- Insurance

will buy an awful lot of fuel for one of your existing cars.

Don't get me wrong I am looking foward to checking out the Honda and Subaru Diesels, but there is no economy in buying a new car.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-16-2008, 09:09 AM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 41,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmerich View Post
I might buy a Porsche 914 that gets 35mpg. Car costs 1200 bucks. Seems like a no brainer. Other vehicles (6.3 & 6.9) are a joke, my Jeep gets 20. For each gallon I burn, the 914 goes 75% further. Assume gas is $3.15 for now. If I drive 1000 miles I burn 50 gallons in the Jeep, 28.6 in the 914. I save 21.4 gallons, or 67.5 dollars. So after 17,800 miles the 914 has paid for itself.

Point being even though it is easy to find a car that is more economical that another, the total cost of ownership is important. For example, if you bought a car that gets twice the MPG as your old car, but costs twice as much, will it really pay out? Of course there are a lot of other variables, such as the fact you might be wanting to replace the car anyway, etc.

I remember seeing a news story on TV about a couple in East Texas who put a windmill on the farm to generate electricity. I think they said the might cut their usage by 1/3 to 1/2. But the windmill cost $55,000 and the pretty much knew it would never pay for itself.

I know they thought they are being green, but all of that comes at a price. This is why the U.S. will be on fossil fuels for a long time. Changing technologies will be EXPENSIVE, and we Americans don't like to be told what to do, much less having to spend more money to do it.
All of those offshore platforms are an excellent resource for wind technology. There's a local group here that is financing development on some abandoned rigs off the Texas coast. Why not Louisiana's coast?

Because the trans-Gulf bird migrations pass right through the oil fields. The giant swinging windmills could harvest tens of thousands of migratory birds. Louisiana passed a moratorium law on offshore windmills, Texas has not. Viola! Curiously, one of the major proponents of windmills who is from Louisiana and building them in TX is also a committed, long-standing Sierra Club member. And Cadillac dealership owner.
__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-16-2008, 01:59 PM
Emmerich's Avatar
M-100's in Dallas
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 678
State waters only extend a few miles offshore, after that is the MMS. Most platforms are further out in the Gulf. Is there any issues with putting windmills in federal waters?

I am guessing the windmills go in after the wells are abandoned? Seems like they would get in the way of operations and things like helicopters... if so, these platforms have a limited life and they rust away like crazy. You HAVE to remove them before they collapse. Actually, they can be condemned to prevent humans working on them too.

Ain't cheap.

New technologies normally require big commitments before they take off. Windmills are not economical for individuals, but in large scale applications, they can generate a lot of power. There are some things that must meet critical mass before they are economically sound.

My company had some gas wells in the Rockies that were not big enough to justify a pipeline to produce them (expensive terrain issues and distance). I think it was around the Utah/Colorado border. This was several years ago, before I got there, so this is second hand. Someone came up with the idea to put in a natural gas electrical generation plant. Running power lines is a lot cheaper than a gas pipeline. Story goes there was some sort of incompatibility issue between the electrical grids on different sides of the state border, the plant was on one side but needed to sell to the grid on the other. I have not been able to verify the grid issue story, someone said there are 2 grids in the US, east and west but I have not been able to find anybody to confirm, and if there was, it would seem like there would be a way to deal with it. Either way the project died.











Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst View Post
All of those offshore platforms are an excellent resource for wind technology. There's a local group here that is financing development on some abandoned rigs off the Texas coast. Why not Louisiana's coast?

Because the trans-Gulf bird migrations pass right through the oil fields. The giant swinging windmills could harvest tens of thousands of migratory birds. Louisiana passed a moratorium law on offshore windmills, Texas has not. Viola! Curiously, one of the major proponents of windmills who is from Louisiana and building them in TX is also a committed, long-standing Sierra Club member. And Cadillac dealership owner.
__________________
MB-less
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-16-2008, 02:46 PM
Botnst's Avatar
What knockers!
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: There castle.
Posts: 41,632
Yes, abandoned platforms. There are plenty in the near-shore environment. You can see them from the northern Texas coast to Mobile Bay. And the winds along shores almost never stop blowing.

You're right about MMS and maritime law governing the far offshore environment.

I am curious how the owners propose to transmit power from offshore -- undersea transmission lines? I can hardly imagine the inductive loss that would generate. Also, imagine what the electrical field would do to deep sea fish -- which use electrical fields to hunt prey and avoid predators. I know nothing, just speculating.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/wind.html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/wind.html (article mentions my local boy)

We're hijacking this sucker!

__________________
'Government is like a baby:
An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and
no sense of responsibility at the other'
- Ronald Reagan
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page