VW clean diesels have best sales month since launch in June
May was another dismal month for car sales pretty much everywhere, including Volkswagen. There was however one bright spot at VW: sales of its Jetta TDI. Overall, sales of the Jetta were up 27.6 percent in May and it appears that most of that gain was due to the new Sportwagen and TDI versions. The 2009 Jetta TDI was the first tier 2 bin 5 compliant clean diesel car to make it to market last year when the first examples went on sale in August. The diesel versions of the Jetta have always been popular when they have been available in the U.S. and this new one was no exception.
In May, TDI sales had their best month yet at 3,862 cars sold, accounting for over 36 percent of Jetta sales. The Jetta TDI remains the most affordable of the new diesels currently available in the U.S. The only other car is the BMW 335d which starts at $44,000 with the other options all being SUVs. This fall, the new Golf TDI will join the Jetta at VW dealers and Audi will start selling the A3 TDI.
[Source: Volkswagen]
Volkswagen Reports May 2009 Sales
PRNewswire
HERNDON, Va.
Best clean diesel sales month since launch of all-new TDI
HERNDON, Va., June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Volkswagen of America, Inc. today announced May 2009 sales of 19,568 units, a 12.4 percent decrease over May 2008.
Volkswagen of America's volume model, the Jetta, posted its best sales month since August of 2008 with sales of 8,992 units. The Jetta SportWagen posted its best sales month since its launch last year with sales of 1,605 units. Volkswagen's award winning clean diesel models also posted their best sales month since their launch last year with 3,862 units sold.
"In this challenging economy, Volkswagen is pleased with our May sales results," said Mark Barnes, Chief Operating Officer, Volkswagen of America, Inc. "We're really encouraged by how well our Jetta sedan and SportWagen did in May, and equally excited by how well our TDI clean diesel models continue to sell," added Barnes.
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
Founded in 1955, Volkswagen of America, Inc. is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. It is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen is one of the world's largest producers of passenger cars and Europe's largest automaker. Volkswagen sells the Eos, Rabbit, New Beetle, New Beetle convertible, GTI, Jetta, Jetta SportWagen, GLI, Passat, Passat wagon, CC, Tiguan, Touareg 2 and Routan through approximately 600 independent U.S. dealers. All 2009 Volkswagens come standard-equipped with Electronic Stabilization Program. This is important because the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has called ESC the most effective new vehicle safety technology since the safety belt. Visit Volkswagen of America online at vw.com or www.media.vw.com to learn more.
VW-US Snapshot ---------- YEAR-TO-DATE ----------
May-09 May-08 Yr/Yr % May-09 YTD May-08 YTD Yr/Yr %
Actual Actual change Actual Actual change
Rabbit 611 2,393 -74.5% 3,408 9,253 -63.2%
GTI 857 1,159 -26.1% 2,814 5,102 -44.8%
R32 1 315 -99.7% 133 1,918 -93.1%
Total
Rabbit/GTI/
R32 1,469 3,867 6,355 16,273 -60.9%
Jetta
Sdn 8,992 8,303 8.3% 30,676 37,415 -18.0%
SportWagen 1,605 - 0.0% 5,554 - N/A
Total
Jetta 10,597 8,303 27.6% 36,230 37,415 -3.2%
New Beetle
- Coupe 602 1,678 -64.1% 4,058 6,378 -36.4%
- Convertible 570 1,809 -68.5% 1,861 5,312 -65.0%
Total New
Beetle 1,172 3,487 -66.4% 5,919 11,690 -49.4%
Eos 1,009 1,807 -44.2% 2,978 6,634 -55.1%
Passat
Sdn 851 3,016 -71.8% 4,194 13,358 -68.6%
Wgn 228 678 -66.4% 1,018 2,923 -65.2%
Total
Passat 1,079 3,694 -70.8% 5,212 16,281 -68.0%
CC 1,419 - N/A 8,290 N/A
Tiguan 1,133 679 66.9% 5,207 679 666.9%
Touareg 300 509 -41.1% 1,599 3,344 -52.2%
Routan 1,390 - N/A 6,191 - N/A
TOTAL 19,568 22,346 -12.4% 77,981 92,316 -15.5%
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Richard 4:04PM (6/03/2009)
Would previewing the post and formatting the numbers to line up correctly be too much to ask? Having that messy information really detracts from the post as a whole.
Reply
win39 5:19PM (6/03/2009)
And yet I see VW running an anti-hybrid ad as if they were not selling. I wonder if they have lifted the number of TDI Jettas they will import?
Reply
downtoearth 5:19PM (6/03/2009)
So now we have 3,862 more people in the USA who are completely incapable of calculating anything. Volkswagen heavy brainwashing and customer misleading is starting to take its toll. Let's check some FACTS (not opinion).
To drive a bog standard gasoline NON-HYBRID Honda Civic 4d 1.8, 0-60 in 9.4 sec over 15k miles you need 11.8 barrels = 495.6 gallons of crude oil [1].
To drive a VW Jetta 2.0 TDI Clean (?) Diesel, 0-60 in 9 sec, over the same distance you need 11.9 barrels ~= 500 gallons of crude oil. [2]
Both cars have EPA pollution rating of 6 out of 10. So diesels are in fact a huge brown environmental scam. They do not save fossil fuels, they do not decrease American reliance on foreign oil imports. In fact, they increase it slightly.
How about costs then?
Honda Civic 1.8 4d starts at 15,5k USD. The Jetta TDI starts at 22k USD. LOL :-) It's mere 40% more.
So maybe diesels save cash when being driven? Well, the Jetta TDI has slightly better fuel economy (not efficiency) so you pay a bit less at the pumps than in case of the Civic. But not only these savings never pay back due to massive initial price premium, they are also completely eaten out by more expensive maintenance of very complex diesel cars. Again, let's check some FACTS.
5-year total costs of ownership:
2004 VW Jetta GL TDI: $33,767 [3]
2004 Honda Civic DX 4d: $27,809 [4]
So diesels are a loss-loss solution. Environment loses its fossil fuels cause some modern gasoline cars are even more efficient and you lose since diesels are just cash sinks.
Who wins?
Well, the car maker. Higher price = higher company earnings. Higher maintenance costs = higher company earnings as well.
People fondly believe that a tad higher mpg (fuel ECONOMY) and a tad smaller fuel bills make car cheaper to run. Wrong. Only the total costs matter and these are completely in favour of efficient petrol cars.
I stop at this point and won't even mention hybrids cause these crush diesels in terms of enironment protection completely, are much cheaper to refuel and also much cheaper to own in terms of total costs of ownership.
Sources:
[1] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=25870
[2] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=25262
[3] http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/volkswagen/jetta/100352548/cto.html?setzip=10006&vdp=off
[4] tinyurl.com/p5swd5
Reply
GoodCheer 5:56PM (6/03/2009)
DowntoEarth
I assume your objection is simply to the _reasons_ people give for buying one car over another. If everybody bought cars based on the lowest TCO, then there would be exactly 1 model in each category of car, and I doubt that's a prospect for which you're advocating.
Is it even worth pointing out that different cars have different characters (driving, aesthetic etc). Cars sell at all different price points and the value to the owners must be measured in many different metrics.
Also
In previous posts, you've been very reasonable in pointing out user fuel consumption data. There is evidence that (for whatever reason), the EPA test cycle does a poor job of predicting real-world numbers for diesels. Using the sources you provide, the combined USER fuel economies for those two cars are 31.6mpg and 40.3mpg. I'll let you propagate these differences through the TCO, the effect will probably not be trivial compared to 29 vs. 33 used by EPA and edmunds.
win39 6:05PM (6/03/2009)
C'mon...
I own a current Honda Civic purchased before the runup of gasoline to $4/gallon for the very reasons you cite. It is a decent car, better in many ways than other cars in its price class. But no station wagon. Not even a hatchback. No option of a fuel saving new tech automatic. No European style handling. No passenger has ever said, "what a nice interior." Why not compare it to MB diesel. You could get spectacular results in your calculations. Why not compare the TDI to a car in its price class instead making accusations. Why, if you selected a car about the same size like an Acura TSX, it might even go the other way.
And why do you denigrate the difference in efficiency? If you look at the mileage that people actually get on the site you like. Anyone would say that a 33 percent increase in efficiency of the TDI over the lighter and smaller Civic is substantial by any measure.
How does not either car save fossil fuels? Just an exaggeration? Anyone who downsizes their ride or performance envelope, as I did, saves fossil fuels.
Down to earth? I think not.
downtoearth 10:13PM (6/03/2009)
GoodCheer:
> Also in previous posts, you've been very reasonable
> in pointing out user fuel consumption data. There is
> evidence that (for whatever reason), the EPA test cycle
> does a poor job of predicting real-world numbers for diesels.
Your wishful thinking does not make up for any evidence.
DIESEL CARS - EPA vs reality
Mercedes ML 320 CDI:
EPA combined: 20 mpg
User combined: 21,6 mpg [2]
VW Touareg 3.0 TDI:
EPA combined: 20 mpg
User combined: 19,7 mpg [3]
BMW 335d:
EPA combined: ~27-28 mpg
User combined: 27,8 mpg [4]
VW Jetta 2.0 TDI
EPA combined: 34 mpg
User combined: 38 mpg [5]
VW Golf 2.0 TDI (same platform, chassis, engine, gearbox as Jetta TDI, only a big sample of 140 readings, only 15 for the Jetta TDI)
EPA combined: NO DATA, likely the same as for the Jetta TDI so 34-35 mpg
User combined: 36,7 mpg [6]
Mercedes E 320 CDI:
EPA combined: 26 mpg
User combined: 25,8 mpg [8]
Audi Q7 3.0 TDI
EPA combined: NO DATA
User combined: 20 mpg [1]
GASOLINE CARS - EPA vs reality
2006 Honda Civic 1.8 auto, 104 drivers [7]
EPA combined: 30 mpg
User combined: 31.8 mpg
============================
So EPA does an excellent job estimating real life fuel economy of cars, whatever the type, be it a hybrid, a gasser or a diesel. People either get what the rating says or a tad more.
That's why I used EPA estimated energy impact in my comparison. Because it simply works, is realistic and makes sure conditions of testing are perfectly the same.
Sources:
[1] tinyurl.com/lvffyp
[2] tinyurl.com/psqfwe
[3] tinyurl.com/of3gtl
[4] tinyurl.com/qgcqxs
[5] tinyurl.com/oo2s4q
[6] tinyurl.com/pem2ve
[7] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=21736&browser=true&details=on
[8] tinyurl.com/ou4lk9
GoodCheer 12:24AM (6/04/2009)
DowntoEarth
"Your wishful thinking does not make up for any evidence."
I wasn't doing any thinking at all (go ahead and take a swipe at that), I was simply reading off what I saw on the citations -you provided- for the vehicles -you chose to compare-.
Also, in your (new, improved) set of citations, you're comparing Euro-spec vehicles rated by (generally) German drivers against US-spec vehicles rated on the EPA test cycle. I'm not sure that's really a valid comparison. Doing the same comparison using the (admittedly sparse for post 2008 diesels) data provided by American drivers of US-spec vehicles, your argument is significantly less well supported.
I thought what difference there are between US and Euro versions would probably be emissions controls that would hurt the US-version mileage, but the evidence suggest the opposite.
GoodCheer 12:34AM (6/04/2009)
....Of course diesel drivers in America may be a self-selecting group of people who drive more gently and _try_ to get better mileage. That would certainly throw things off.
(Oh dear, that was me thinking again... I'll try not to do that... or do you not object when my thoughts tangentially support your tirade).
randomdude 3:36AM (6/04/2009)
Not another of these rather idiotic comparisons.
First of all, you always seem to take cars based on how fast they do the 0-60. Does anyone actually go to a car dealer and compares the cars by the time they need for 0-60? What the heck?
Second, there's something fundamentally wrong with your comparison of the "energy impact". And I'll just leave you with a hint: what happens in a refinery?
In a comment below you talk about particulate matter. In a German court it was made apparent that there's no benifit from the environmental protection zones when it comes to reducing PM. There's just so much PM in the air from other sources that cars with diesel engines hardly matter anymore. Furthermore I'd like to know: do conventional (non-di) gasoline engines emit PM? Shall I give you a hint?
wxman 10:43AM (6/04/2009)
@ randomdude -
I agree with you. PM2.5 from diesel engines (on-road and off-road) has been shown to make up a very small portion of the ambient PM2.5 in the U.S. (~2% in D.C. - see graphic on second slide in http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2007/poster3/deer07_lawson.pdf ). These data pre-date use of DPF.
Meanwhile, based on that same slide, PM emissions from gasoline engines makes up ~21% of ambient PM2.5. Maybe gasoline engines need a particulate filter?
I also agree with the higher energy requirements, and thus CO2 emissions, in the refining of gasoline vis-a-vis USLD fuel, something that even Toyota acknowledges ( http://www.mizuho-ir.co.jp/english/knowledge/documents/wtwghg041130.pdf - Tables 2.1.2 - 2.1.4 on page 19).
chewy 4:49PM (6/05/2009)
There is a problem with your analysis. You are not comparing identical vehicles. If you compared the Civic and Corolla your analysis would work, but the Jetta and the Civic are quite different. The gas powered Jetta is 600 pounds heavier than the regular Civic.
The second difference is that the average user mpg is 40 for the Jetta TDIs and 32 for the Civic using the EPA user data. Of course that's not the most reliable data, but the current EPA ratings do not do a fair job of estimating diesel mpg.
So what you have is a significantly heavier car getting about 25% more fuel economy. Your calculations were based on the Jetta TDI only getting 14% better fuel economy, which only happens in the EPA world.
Soon the same TDI will be put into the Passat replacement and will get very similar fuel economy. Something impossible if you stick the 1.8 into the Accord. The comparison will favor the diesel even more at that point.
downtoearth 9:07AM (6/07/2009)
> There is a problem with your analysis. You are not comparing
> identical vehicles. If you compared the Civic and Corolla your
> analysis would work, but the Jetta and the Civic are quite different.
> The gas powered Jetta is 600 pounds heavier than the regular Civic.
It's Volkswagen problem they make their cars so obese.
> The second difference is that the average user mpg is 40 for the
> Jetta TDIs
Which is caused by its drivers presenting unnaturally high highway driving bias.
http://fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=mpgData&vehicleID=25262&browser=true&details=on
A lot of them comes with 100%, 90% and 80% of highway driving. This is the sole reason of average observed Jetta TDI mpg being 40.
I provided sources of Volkswagen Golf/Jetta 2.0 TDI 140HP mixed mode driving resulting in 37 mpg (140 drivers, not 20 with highway bias).
> but the current EPA ratings do not do a fair job of estimating diesel mpg.
I presented 7 diesels cars sold in the USA with EPA ratings being exactly what mixed-mode driving returns as an average. You apparently cannot accept this fact.
> which only happens in the EPA world.
It happens in the very real world what I proved above. Only you're incapable of accepting it.
> Soon the same TDI will be put into the Passat replacement
> and will get very similar fuel economy.
VW Passat 2.0 TDI 140HP return real life observed fuel economy of 6,9 l/100km = 34 miles per gallon (250+ drivers).
Source: http://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/50-Volkswagen/456-Passat.html?fueltype=1&constyear_s=2005&power_s=100&power_e=105
> Something impossible if you stick the 1.8 into the Accord.
Diesel has higher energy density than gasoline and requires more crude oil to make. An Accord with lower mpg will consume less fossil fuel than a Passat TDI with higher mpg in the same way that gasoline Civic beats the Jetta TDI. The Accord will also be bigger and will cost less to buy and service.
> The comparison will favor the diesel even more at that point.
Diesels:
- consume more fossil fuel to run than ordinary gasoline cars, with hybrids being just in another league
- are more costly to buy and service than both gasoline and gas-electric hybrids
That's why they are a loss-loss solution. You lose money and waste fossil resources for no good reason.
Oilburner 10:22PM (6/07/2009)
combined driving miles
honda Jetta
29 33
Tank Size honda Basic (w/clkup autotrans) Jetta
13.2 gal 14.5 gal
Miles on Tank 345 431
Annual Fuel Cost* honda Jetta
$1263 $1032
The jetta fuel tank is 1.3 gals larger than the honda. That increases the loaded weight the jetta carries due to the density of diesel of 7.09 lbs/gal. compared to the Honda @ 6.073 lb/US gal.
For the Honda to make up the 86 mile difference, your honda would have to use an additional 2.95 gal. at a cost of $7.22(cost to drive 25 miles)
In the end of the honda life cycle, it will cost you more in terms of fuel expense, use and emmissions output.
Now it is mentioned that diesels have a pm output, yes it is true, todays D's are nothing like the old oilburners. The Pm output is soot. It is fertile and once settles to the ground is good for the environment. The Dsl's do not have greenhouse gases like gas burners do. Dsl's exhaust gas is of concern because of the Nx oxcides which is a whole new concern altogether. With that being said, the PM and gas out put of a Dsl is 25% of the fuel compared to 75% exhaust emmissions froam a gas burner.
Because of the density of the Dsl fuel it burns hotter, 75% of the energy produced frm Dsl combust is used while 25% is emmisions. A Gas burner is highly less efficient, 25% of the fuel burned is used for power while 75% is out to the atmosphere as your green house gasses.
There is a Nx filter being developed as we speak to tackle this problem. However what I see from the Green party and their forced political agenda on society has made the cost of owning a Dsl increase to include the amount of oil consumed. With all your mandated smog and filter equipment, you have made the Dsl a less efficient engine to operate, lowering the MPG, lowering the fuel injection pressure in which the fuel is injected (reduces engine noise) and operating temperture. Dsl engine runs more effeciently at a higher temp than a cooler temp and a higher temp allows for much better combustion. But with lower temps you have more PM which increases the need for you PM filters and Gutchy emmisson control items. Now the mandate to have refineries produce ULSD, the cost of manufacture increases (cost of ownership/annual fuel costs).
I still love my 2003 6.0 Dsl crewcab 4x4 pickup. I am exploring to by the rumored 2010 VW Golf GTD. If they build it and it comes to America, I will get it.
Donan Iacovone 4:28PM (8/04/2009)
Annual fuel cost for a 2009 Honda Civic is $1263 while the 2009 Jetta is $1001.
Carbon output for the Civic is 6.3 tons of CO2 emitted annually while the Jetta is 6.2 tons annually.
0-60 mph for the Civic with manual transmission was recorded at 9.8 seconds by Motor Trend and recorded a 8.4 seconds 0-60 mph for the Jetta TDI by Motor Trend.
Price for a 2009 Honda Civic 1.8 liter with manual transmission is $19,100 with equipment even close to the Jetta whose starting price is $22, 970 with a $1300 tax credit and free maintenance for 3 years or 36, 000 miles.
The Civic has a 4 cubic feet less cargo volume and less front and rear legroom. The Civic is more of a compact car in size while the Jetta is more of a midsize sedan in size.
The resale value of a Jetta TDI is also estimated much higher.
Michael Hippenhammer 5:57PM (6/03/2009)
downtoearth if you were truely smart you would compare those numbers above to a gasoline Jetta and a TDI Jetta I might listen to all your numbers. Fact is you are comparing apples to oranges which is not smart. Give me the new numbers with identical vechicle but, with different engines. I for one do not want a Honda and we VW buyers buy VW's. Your numbers are PURE bias. I drive a TDI and hope to never go back to gasoline. Plus in my year TDI I can run 100% biodiesel which I do, and you do not mention those numbers. And don't make me by a Japanese car I am simply not interested. Given time the new diesels will be able to run a higher percentage bio-diesel. Then add a hybrid system to the diesel and gasoline can not compare.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 7:49PM (6/03/2009)
Pot calling the kettle black.
nixon 8:32PM (6/03/2009)
Here is your VW Jetta 2.5 gas vs. TDI comparison:
"A better price comparison would be between the Jetta SEL (MSRP $22,965) to the Jetta TDI with the DSG-automatic and 17" avignon wheel options added (MSRP 22,270+options=$23,820). That equals an $855 dollar premium for buying a TDI with EXACTLY the same options and features as the same car with a gas engine.
Goto http://www.vw.com/jetta/compare/en/us/ to see the features, and then "build your own" for both the SEL and the TDI, and add DSG and 17" avignon wheels, and you should get the same numbers.
But the $855 premium doesn't take into account the $1,300 dollar tax credit that the TDI qualifies for that the 2.5 gasser doesn't. You actually pay LESS for the TDI than the comparably equipped 2.5 gasser!
You pay less upfront, it has a higher top speed, faster 0-60, and it gets 9 to 11 more miles per gallon (cty/hwy). And if the last few years is any indicator, it will have a better resell value."
So when you do an apples-to-apples comparison of the actual new cars that are on sale at the dealership now, the TDI all the sudden looks much better than it's equally equipped gas engine twin.
Once folks go off comparing much different cars, it gets silly. All the sudden you can prove that a Geo Metro is a better car than a BMW 335d, as if they were in any way comparable vehicles.
downtoearth 9:24PM (6/03/2009)
Michael Hippenhammer:
> Your numbers are PURE bias.
It smells like such a desperation. You call my well referenced key numbers for the cars compared like energy impact score and total costs of ownership which are just FACTS biased and provide your OPINION based on nothing other than your preference.
Basic facts cannot be biased, sorry mate. Diesels in cars are simply inferior technology. That's why a simple 15k USD Civic shots down the complex Jetta TDI both in terms of environmental friendliness as well as total ownership costs.
And Civic needs no direct injection, no ultra-high pressure fuel pump, no turbocharger, no particulate filter, no NOx trap, no double-mass flywheel, no intercooler. So the current generation (I compared the 2004 models) Jetta will be even more expensive to maintain than the old durable 1.9 TDI.
> downtoearth if you were truely smart you would compare
> those numbers above to a gasoline Jetta and a TDI Jetta
2.5 gasser in the Jetta is the worst and probably the oldest engine in the VW lineup. The 2.0 TDI CR has just rolled out from the factory. New diesels should be compared with new modern gasoline engines like the one in the Civic.
> I for one do not want a Honda and we VW buyers buy VW's.
If you want to lose money fast, no problem. Besides Suzuki, Volkswagen has the worst dependability rating of all brands, even Land Rovers are more reliable. So you'll have a lot of opportunities to pour cash on your cars in this hard times.
Source: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings-by-brand/sortcolumn-1/ascending/page-#page-anchor
> in my year TDI I can run 100% biodiesel which I do
It's old then. So it spews lung cancer out of the tail pipe (in form of particulate matter), a disease with 5% 5-year observed survival, so it's basically a death sentence. These TDI engines got ONE out of 10 points for EPA pollution rank, see here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=19520 This is why they got kicked out of the USA.
Congratulation for putting drivers behind you and yourself as well at risk.
Volkswagen naturally kept selling its dirty diesels in Europe where people think saving pennies at the pump (while losing bucks overall in total costs) is worth dying of cancer.
To put things in perspective, the 2004 Toyota Prius got air pollution rating 8 out of 10, one of the cleanest car on the market: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp?year=2004&make=Toyota&model=Prius&hiddenField=Findacar
Snowdog 9:36PM (6/03/2009)
$24820. You forgot the sunroof which is standard on the SEL. So the premiums is $1855.
But from what everyone says you will find the dealers much more willing to deal on the gassers.
why not the LS2LS7? 12:30AM (6/04/2009)
The TDI is not faster 0-60 than the 2.5. Reports vary, but the over/under on both of them is about 8.2 secs.