Tow Vehicle Total Cost of Ownership

[Prettygood]

Tri-motor Cybertruck for the win. [emoji3]

[wulfraat]

Holly smokes is this thread about camping and retirement or theoretical macro economics? [emoji4]

I’m not ready to retire yet but BayouBiker I bet your neighbor will really enjoy every minute traveling and enjoying the fruits of their labor in their new airstream.

This weekend I’m thinking about heading out for some backcountry skiing, or maybe take the trailer out for some camping with my daughter. Or maybe both - we’ll see.

What are you guys getting up to? Any camping in the near future?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Prettygood

Tri-motor Cybertruck for the win. [emoji3]

Probably. For those that want a BEV pickup, there aren’t many alternatives yet. Ford’s battery supply is in question for the F150. Apart from Tesla, others haven’t proven they can ramp production yet. But the CT is pretty polarizing. I can’t deal with the angles, or the width, but I wish them well. My preference would be a Model S Plaid with the new 4680 batteries. It would have sufficient towing range, and could pull a Globetrotter 23 or 27 beautifully. I don’t need the 200 mph or 2 second 0-60, so if they put that battery pack in another vehicle, like a Model Y AWD LR+, even better.

Until they do, Cybertruck FTW!

[jcl]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

What are you guys getting up to? Any camping in the near future?

No travel or social visits here. Pandemic. A bike ride tomorrow. Despite the -6C before wind chill.

Hopefully travel by July.

[wulfraat]

Originally Posted by jcl;

No travel or social visits here. Pandemic. A bike ride tomorrow. Despite the -6C before wind chill.

Hopefully travel by July.

Grew up in Montreal road cyclist since the age of 8. Booties, mitts and a balaclava for winter rides no doubt!

Coroado is sweet. Ski up in the mountains in the morning, ride on the front range in the afternoon!

Now maybe I will alter my plans and ride instead of ski tomorrow. Just a light covering of snow on the ground should be gone by noon

Stay warm!

[BayouBiker]

Thus far in this thread we've looked at and were not able to invalidate one of the available peer reviewed university studies showing diesel vehicle total cost lower. We reviewed several non peer review studies that contradicted the Michigan paper but invalidated all but one of those. We didn't have access to the detailed methods and data for the remaining one and it only slightly contradicted the Michigan conclusions. Though the introduction and description provided some clues that might explain the differences, still we had to set it aside as it is unusable at present since the results cannot be verified.

So the general cases presented in the peer reviewed paper from Michigan seems to be holding up though jcl alluded to failure to include pollution costs, having made a reference to particulate matter. Modern diesel vehicle engines equipped with particle filters emit 10 times fewer particulate matter than gasoline engines so if we were able to assign a cost to particulate pollution, it would further aid the case for diesel. At this time no other objections have been raised for the general case.

My neighbor attempted to include an evaluation of hybrid and electric vehicles also and in the case of electric vehicles he added a cost for journey delays due to lost time for charging while on the road. jcl suggested government subsidies should constitute a reduction in total cost, however that is incorrect since it is a payment made by the government not a price reduction from the seller so total cost is unchanged, instead the subsidy adds to the value side of the equation for those individuals who like the idea of their neighbors being compelled to contribute to the purchase.

In the original post, I wondered what items might be missing from these studies that would lead to the conclusion that is different than the prevailing opinion here on the forum that diesel vehicles cost more. If pollution costs are missing it would be difficult to show that gasoline engines are cleaner than diesel so it may not be worth the trouble. If someone thinks pollution costs are enough to favor electric vehicles and the costs should be included, we would also have to include the cost of lithium mining pollution and the other real consequences of electricity generation.

So this is where it stands, as of now the prevailing opinion on this forum that diesel vehicles are a costly extravagance appears to be false.

[wulfraat]

Q.E.D.

Nice.

[StrangeDaze]

Man...

I read thru all that.. and I came away with the impression that some folks need some perspective on why they own the airstream, and enjoy the RV lifestyle.

No one does this exactly the same.. some of you will choose diesel.. and save. Some of you will choose gas and save.

Personally, I didn't buy an airstream to "save". I could have bought 3+ RV trailers of similar size, full loaded (but of obviously lesser build quality) for the price of our AS.

Personally, I didn't buy an F250 with a diesel and other options to "save".. but to enjoy.

What is the price you put on your ability to drive from Denver to Grand Junction without having to struggle? Or run your engine at 4500 rpm for the next few hours? Or across Nebraska with the winds pushing you around?

Thats a question that each of you answer differently, and the "cost" or "savings" is based on unique answers to unique questions.

My "time" is worth a lot. My wife's time is worth even more. If we spend an extra 2-3 days on the road per year going slower in a less powerful/capable truck in order to "save" on gas, we lost more on income from those wasted days. Thats our equation.

The cost of diesel is worth it to have the power that diesel gives you. Its not apples an apples. Gas will pull your AS.. true. Diesel will as well. But they are not equal.

In light of the current uncertainty in fuel prices moving forward.. its very possible that those concerned about saving money will find gas prices and diesel prices being a toss up... with premium gas already higher than diesel.

But at the end of the day.. I understand being budget minded. Not being overly wasteful.. sure. But none of us chose AS because we wanted to save money.

So buy the truck you want.. with the engine that suits your abilities and your driving habits... and stop sweating it.

I mean.. hehe... honestly.. most of us could recoup the cost of fuel filters, DEF and an oil change just by passing up a few restaurants on the trip, and eating sandwiches out of a cooler instead. No thanks! I will enjoy the taco's...

[OTRA15]

Welcome to the forum . . . and to some strange daze in deed. [sic]

[jcl]

Originally Posted by wulfraat

Q.E.D.

Nice.

Based on BB's last post, it might appear so. That would probably be a mistake.

Of course, if one wants a certain product, the financial analysis doesn't matter. But if you got this far, read on....

Using more current data than the 2013 study from the U of Michigan TRI, one would come to the opposite conclusion. I used the 2018 report from Vincentric. BB didn't appear to value that one, as it is from a research company and not an academic institution. BB appears to value peer review, but it would be more valuable if we could see the peer review comments. I didn't have them. And I am not entirely comfortable with the UM TRI study being a paid study, funded by Bosch, as part of their Clean Diesel marketing campaign. (note: Bosch was claiming that diesels cleaned the air as they drove, and the study was weighted towards VW and Audi vehicles using Bosch diesel injection equipment. Bosch paid $100m in fines in the ensuing scandals.)

However, leaving Bosch aside, and focusing on the UM TRI report, in the references, note that it was Vincentric they used as their data source for much of their report. One can compare previous year studies by Vincentric with the older UM TRI report to see how they compare.

The Vincentric site lists their methods, and shows gas vs diesel comparisons for TCO. They are using very similar methodology. They also talk about what changed from 2014 to 2018 with diesel vs gas TCO. It was primarily the fuel efficiency of the new gas engines. Readers can decide if they think that is a valid comment or not based on their own experience.

I would note that it isn't a case of invalidating the older study. Models aren't right or wrong, as much as they are useful or not. For BB's primary study, if you are purchasing a new 2013 vehicle, own your pickup for 3 or 5 years, sell it at auction, pay the national average fuel price, and drive the standard average annual mileage, then it is fine. One thing that may be missing from the UM TRI study is opportunity cost, as noted by another poster above. Vincentric lists it as an element of their model.

Externalities such as particulates weren't considered, they were part of a discussion above about BEV vs ICE, not about diesel vs gas. Similarly, there is no point in getting into whether different forms of price discounts matter or not. Personally, I would use the net purchase price I paid. If one wants to use a higher price and stack the analysis because of a philosophical objection to price discounts, go for it.

Newer data will provide more value to the reader, as will data specific to the user (local fuel prices, actual or planned annual mileage, etc)

If one drives more than the average mileage used in the study, then the fuel efficiency of one model over another matters more. This is entirely consistent with the general consensus on the forum that if one is putting a lot of miles on, then a diesel can make financial sense.

For those wanting to review the Vincentric data, or see their calculators, it is here:

https://www.vincentric.com/Default.aspx

Use the About Us/Data tab to see where the data comes from.

Use the Industry Reports (US or Canada) to find interactive calculators on ownership costs, fees, taxes, etc. Also their 2018 Diesel Analysis (Gas vs Diesel by vehicle class, showing TCO)

The above will help you to build your own model with your own use data.

Best Value awards (by vehicle class) shows 2020 winners for TCO.

Note that most of the more recent data requires signing up, but the 2018 diesel data is fairly recent, and accessible.

[BayouBiker]

The Michigan study is peer reviewed. The precise methods and all data is provided so the study can be replicated and validated. The Vincentric Report used proprietary Statistical methods that were undisclosed with no way to validate or repeat. No raw data was offered , no details of their approach was provided. Even then conclusions were not completely opposite, that is an overreach. It was unfortunate that Vincentric did not provide a way to demonstrate their conclusions were valid. I wonder what they did that was different? The vague description of thier approach, methods and data does not provide enough information to repeat the work. Did they compare apples to apples? Did their statistical methods bias the results? Did they tweak the depreciation schedules or use a statistical model to arrive at fuel costs differently? We don't know. There are other peer reviewed studies consistent with the Michigan conclusions. No studies that reveal their methods have been offered that contradict it. It is a curious thing for someone to dismiss a study that can be tested and validated but accept and promote one on faith that cannot.

So we have a study that is testable and not shown to be in error concluding diesel vehicles are more cost effective than the same vehicle with a gasoline engine.

jcl suggested adding social costs of pollution. The diesel is now much cleaner than gasoline so inclusion will further favor diesel. Price discounts offered by the seller of course figure into total costs. Costs paid by a third party (your neighbors in the form of mandated taxes) don't change the selling price or the total product cost it only shifts who is requited to pay those costs. It certainly counts on the individual value side if you are one who enjoys the idea of having authority force others to pay a portion of of your vehicle's cost. Externalities including pollution costs are treated the same, where the cost for pollution is borne by society and nature, not the vehicle owner, and yet jcl sees no inconsistency in suggesting pollution is a cost but the other not. Again the inconsistency or double standard is currious.

Given the terrible consequences of lithium mining and refining to the environment, animals, and humans, it is difficult to see how electric vehicles have a lower pollution cost than modern diesel vehicles. Particularly when we consider the additional consequences of modern electricity generation along with modern petroleum production and refining. But we can test this idea without too much difficulty.

If someone can find where I am being inconsistent or where a peer reviewed, repeatable and verifiable report is inconsistent, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, rules of the scientific method demand the conclusion I offer that diesel vehicles are generally more cost effective than the same gasoline version and will likely remain that way in the sort term. More speculative due to large future uncertainties, but very likely true is that EVs in the short term (next 5-7 years) will remain the most costly, particularly for towing.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

The Michigan study is peer reviewed. The precise methods and all data is provided so the study can be replicated and validated. The Vincentric Report used proprietary Statistical methods that were undisclosed with no way to validate or repeat. No raw data was offered , no details of their approach was provided. Even then conclusions were not completely opposite, that is an overreach. It was unfortunate that Vincentric did not provide a way to demonstrate their conclusions were valid. I wonder what they did that was different? The vague description of their approach, methods and data does not provide enough information to repeat the work. Did they compare apples to apples? Did their statistical methods bias the results? Did they tweak the depreciation schedules or use a statistical model to arrive at fuel costs differently? We don't know. There are other peer reviewed studies consistent with the Michigan conclusions. No studies that reveal their methods have been offered that contradict it. It is a curious thing for someone to dismiss a study that can be tested and validated but accept and promote one on faith that cannot.

So we have a study that is testable and not shown to be in error concluding diesel vehicles are more cost effective than the same vehicle with a gasoline engine.

<red herring on pollution costs in a BEV comparison snipped>

<red herring on lithium mining, unrelated to gas vs diesel, snipped>

If someone can find where I am being inconsistent or where a peer reviewed, repeatable and verifiable report is inconsistent, I'd like to hear about it. Otherwise, rules of the scientific method demand the conclusion I offer that diesel vehicles are generally more cost effective than the same gasoline version and will likely remain that way in the sort term.

The two Michigan studies appear to have been removed from the UM TRI website. They show up in a search of that site, but are no longer available. They don't explain why that is. The study was in support of a product claim that was determined to be false, and was paid for by a sponsor that was found guilty of fraud related to that claim (clean diesel). The study lead author is no longer with the university, but is running a private economic analysis firm. The other appears to be listed as a biostatistician. Certainly the 2013 study is available on internet archive sites, where I found it.

I wondered if the report had been pulled at the request of the sponsor, perhaps as part of a settlement agreement, or maybe just because the sponsor announced their exit from that line of business. They are now focusing on hybrid and BEV drives, per news reports. An old study on how "clean" diesel was going to take over the North American market for passenger vehicles may have been inconvenient.

Peer review can matter. A review of the peers can help determine if it was a solid peer review or a pay for review. Please forward a list of the reviewers if you have it. Otherwise, the phrase "peer reviewed" means little.

If we are looking at peer review details, we should also look at citations for the original paper. I saw only 7, and none of them referenced the report in further research on TCO, or economic data of gas vs diesel. If we are to put all our faith in this one paper, then it would be good to know if other researchers did as well.

The Michigan report relied on Vincentric data. If you want to call it "tortured statistics" well, OK then, but that applies to the Michigan report as well.

The contrary conclusion was whether a diesel pickup had a lower TCO over a five year term compared to a gas powered pickup. It is either yes, or no. Seems very possible to call it opposite. In fact, the Vincentric study wasn't even close, for pickups. They looked at 324 models avaialable in gas and diesel. It wasn't a split. It was 324 to 0.

Originally Posted by Vincentric 2018 Diesel Analysis

The 419 available diesel vehicles were categorized into four types: Passenger Cars (23 diesels), SUV/Crossovers (22 diesels), Trucks (324 diesels), and Vans (50 diesels). While virtually all diesel vans were cost-effective, none of the diesel trucks could make that claim.

It isn't at all curious to dismiss a study, if a study wasn't in fact dismissed. You are fishing here. If an individual has the same input conditions as the study, as I listed them, then the study would be fine. That isn't a dismissal. Dismissal sounds like your other word, refute.

Again, models aren't so much right or wrong, as they are useful or not.

I suggested that if one is going out now and purchasing a 2013 vehicle, new, and selling it at auction, and purchasing fuel at 2013 prices (there are more conditions, but you get the drift) then the study would be more useful as a decision support tool, but if one is considering a vehicle purchase now, the MR TRI study isn't as useful as an analysis that uses current data. Especially when both models use the same source data for other than fuel price and vehicle purchase/disposal costs, and the interested observer is able to input their own values there instead of relying on the averages used in the models.

You are doing the opposite, putting all your eggs in the 2013 analysis basket, and to use your phrase, tossing the other studies in the bin.

You asked about other weaknesses in the study, and I would point to the UM TRI study's lack of consideration of the opportunity cost, the lack of inclusion of financing cost, and the study's method of determining purchase price. Again, those weaknesses don't make the study wrong. If a purchaser has unlimited capital, no alternative investment opportunity, and purchases vehicles at the prices used in the report, then the report will probably serve them well, or at least better than someone who is not in that situation.

I don't know why the UM TRI study used those assumptions, and whether it was the author's decision or that of their funding sponsor. They don't seem like real world assumptions.

Your second to last sentence just needs the addition of some qualifiers: In 2013, some diesel vehicles were found to have a lower TCO than their gasoline equivalents, given a particular set of assumptions, and this has not been demonstrated to have changed, and likely won't be shown to have changed, as the commercial entity promoting this position has exited the business segment.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

jcl suggested adding social costs of pollution.

No, that is incorrect. We are discussion gas vs diesel now, or at least I thought we were. My suggestion of particulate emissions was to explore what you meant, in response to your request to include all costs, not just the ones borne directly by the owner, after you disclosed the inclusion of what another poster elegantly labelled "inconvenience fees" for your inclusion of costs if one had to camp on the way to the final destination, camping on the journey being a negative impact on a camping trip if one is solely focused on the destination. The layover was prompted by the range of the BEV tow vehicle.

We could get into the health impacts of diesel vs gas emissions if you like, but that will make this thread much longer. You were the OP, so your call.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Given the terrible consequences of lithium mining and refining to the environment, animals, and humans, it is difficult to see how electric vehicles have a lower pollution cost than modern diesel vehicles. Particularly when we consider the additional consequences of modern electricity generation along with modern petroleum production and refining.

Well, we are all over the place in a TCO discussion about diesel vs gas, but it is your thread, so let's go with it.

Have you been to a lithium mine? Do you distinguish between mining on the salar, or salt flats vs hard rock mining? What is your assessment of brine methods? What is your assessment of the consequences of fossil fuel mining and refining (and let's add fossil fuel storage, transport, and burning while we are at it) to the environment, animals, and humans? Lots of studies available. Peer reviewed ones as well.

The fundamental difference is that lithium is used, and not consumed. Lithium can be a component of a BEV battery pack and function for many years. Then it can be recycled. You should focus on cobalt, at least until new battery chemistries eliminate it.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are consumed. And not cleanly.

Photo of a lithium mine, one of my customers. That is my Expedition.

Your suggestion that BEVs have a higher pollution cost than modern diesel vehicles is patently absurd.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

The two Michigan studies appear to have been removed from the UM TRI website. They show up in a search of that site, but are no longer available. They don't explain why that is. The study was in support of a product claim that was determined to be false, and was paid for by a sponsor that was found guilty of fraud related to that claim (clean diesel). The study lead author is no longer with the university, but is running a private economic analysis firm. The other appears to be listed as a biostatistician. Certainly the 2013 study is available on internet archive sites, where I found it.

I wondered if the report had been pulled at the request of the sponsor, perhaps as part of a settlement agreement, or maybe just because the sponsor announced their exit from that line of business. They are now focusing on hybrid and BEV drives, per news reports. An old study on how "clean" diesel was going to take over the North American market for passenger vehicles may have been inconvenient.

I find it disappointing that you would misrepresent the drivers for Bosch's roll in the VW dieselgate affair. That you would falsely associate it to a completely different claim and then tarnish University of Michigan using the logical fallacy of guilt by association. This is what you did to me previously with a link I provided and this is why I did not provide links to my sources this time. At least you're consistent and I am justified for being cautious. Let me remind people I did not suggest this source, you offered it and I accepted it because the paper and the conclusions are valid and remain valid despite the "guilt by association" fallacy. When you can't address the substance, attack the source, very nice....

Bosch was not found to have committed fraud for making claims of low NOx technology. The UM study had nothing to do with promoting low NOx technology Bosch was fined because it was learned that they knew of VWs plans to cheat emission laws and did not disclose that knowledge, that's it.

The Michigan report relied on Vincentric data. If you want to call it "tortured statistics" well, OK then, but that applies to the Michigan report as well.

Data is data. Tortured statistics speaks to the methods and manipulation of that data. The Vincentric report cannot be falsified and cannot be verified so it's pointless to defend it.

You are doing the opposite, putting all your eggs in the 2013 analysis basket, and to use your phrase, tossing the other studies in the bin.

No, I have two other peer reviewed studies coming to the same conclusion, so I have several baskets. The faulty studies like Consumer Reports and the non-falsifiable studies like Vincentric get tossed.

You asked about other weaknesses in the study, and I would point to the UM TRI study's lack of consideration of the opportunity cost, the lack of inclusion of financing cost, and the study's method of determining purchase price. Again, those weaknesses don't make the study wrong. If a purchaser has unlimited capital, no alternative investment opportunity, and purchases vehicles at the prices used in the report, then the report will probably serve them well, or at least better than someone who is not in that situation.

I don't know why the UM TRI study used those assumptions, and whether it was the author's decision or that of their funding sponsor. They don't seem like real world assumptions.

Inclusion of finance costs or opportunity cost would be a double dip. Finance costs is not a component of the vehicle cost, it is the premium for early availability of a future cash flow. No error was made, including it would be an error. Adjusting the result to dollars of the day does involve adding interest otherwise it not done. The analysis used inflation schedules to put everything into the same basis so addition of opportunity cost is a double dip. It is a clever trick though.

Edit: I don't see any reason to estimate pollution costs as they will just improve the margin for diesel. Since you also are not suggesting it, I'm okay to let it go.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Bosch was not found to have committed fraud for making claims of low NOx technology. The UM study had nothing to do with promoting low NOx technology Bosch was fined because it was learned that they knew of VWs plans to cheat emission laws and did not disclose that knowledge, that's it.

And they delivered to VW software and controllers that contained the defeat devices that are at the root of the whole fiasco.

Bosch Clean Diesel was a marketing campaign from 2013. It was designed to convince North American vehicle buyers that the new diesels being offered were clean. The study under discussion was a promotion of that Clean Diesel campaign. The phrase clean diesel was used 26 times in the report. Even if nobody followed the results, they got to hear the phrase clean diesel over and over.

But clean diesel turned out to be a false promise. The residual effect of the campaign is that there are some around who believe that modern diesels are in fact a clean technology. The manufacturers gave it up. They knew a lost cause when they saw one.

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

No, I have two other peer reviewed studies coming to the same conclusion, so I have several baskets. The faulty studies like Consumer Reports and the non-falsifiable studies like Vincentric get tossed.

More mystery studies. No links. No clues as to what they contain. Yet you proudly proclaim conclusions based on them.

You apparently didn't like the accusations of cherry picking last time. What you are doing here is arbitrarily selecting studies that confirm your position. That is the definition of cherry picking. Your defence appears to be "I didn't name the studies I used, so you can't accuse me of cherry picking"

It is an interesting approach. I don't think it leaves you looking very good, but take a run at it.

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Inclusion of finance costs or opportunity cost would be a double dip. Finance costs is not a component of the vehicle cost, it is the premium for early availability of a future cash flow. No error was made, including it would be an error. Adjusting the result to dollars of the day does involve adding interest otherwise it not done. The analysis used inflation schedules to put everything into the same basis so addition of opportunity cost is a double dip.

Your explanation isn't clear.

It is a pretty simple concept in a TCO analysis. If you take the purchase price, the disposal price, and the regular outlays for maintenance, fuel, etc, and they all occur at the same time, then you don't need to consider it. But if they occur at different times (at the front end, at the back end, or throughout the term) and those times differ between vehicles being compared, then you need to account for the time value of money.

An economist would do that.

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

And they delivered to VW software and controllers that contained the defeat devices that are at the root of the whole fiasco.

Bosch Clean Diesel was a marketing campaign from 2013. It was designed to convince North American vehicle buyers that the new diesels being offered were clean. The study under discussion was a promotion of that Clean Diesel campaign. The phrase clean diesel was used 26 times in the report. Even if nobody followed the results, they got to hear the phrase clean diesel over and over.

But clean diesel turned out to be a false promise. The residual effect of the campaign is that there are some around who believe that modern diesels are in fact a clean technology. The manufacturers gave it up. They knew a lost cause when they saw one.

Again none of this has any relevance to the conclusion. With the inclusion of particle filters and DEF, Clean Diesel is an appropriate descriptor. Again no fraud involved in Bosch's slogans from 2013 so your deception falls flat. As a point of order, their claim of very low NOx technology was not made in 2012-2013, it was introduced in 2018. Clean Diesel is a term still in use. The study remains valid.

More mystery studies. No links. No clues as to what they contain. Yet you proudly proclaim conclusions based on them.

Nope the conclusions of this thread rest on the evidence from study you offered. My own claim is that I don't put all my eggs in one basket. Attempts to discredit UM by creating a false narrative about Bosch and assigning guilt by association validates my caution to not also be discredited as I was the last link I provided where I was falsely accused of subscribing to conspiracy theories due to a cross link. Fool me once....

You apparently didn't like the accusations of cherry picking last time. What you are doing here is arbitrarily selecting studies that confirm your position. That is the definition of cherry picking. Your defence appears to be "I didn't name the studies I used, so you can't accuse me of cherry picking"

It is an interesting approach. I don't think it leaves you looking very good, but take a run at it.

I'm happy to use any study that can be replicated, tested and checked for accuracy. I will address the content and substance if the author provides the means to do so. I won't shoot the messenger, use deception, or assign guilt by association. I think that's a good look

Your explanation isn't clear.

It is a pretty simple concept in a TCO analysis. If you take the purchase price, the disposal price, and the regular outlays for maintenance, fuel, etc, and they all occur at the same time, then you don't need to consider it. But if they occur at different times (at the front end, at the back end, or throughout the term) and those times differ between vehicles being compared, then you need to account for the time value of money.

An economist would do that.

The economists at UM and peer reviewers must have given the authors good advice in that regard. Since they did there is no reason to double dip by adding finance charges or "opportunity costs" as you had suggested. But it is a clever deception.

So, I have no knowledge of any falsifiable studies that contradicts this one and since I don't, I'm happy to stop here. If someone has a study that can be checked for accuracy I would love to hear about it.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Again none of this has any relevance to the conclusion. With the inclusion of particle filters and DEF, Clean Diesel is an appropriate descriptor. Again no fraud involved in Bosch's slogans from 2013 so your deception falls flat. As a point of order, their claim of very low NOx technology was not made in 2012-2013, it was introduced in 2018. Clean Diesel is a term still in use. The study remains valid.

You are demonstrating that you may have drank the koolaid.

The term “clean diesel” was applied to engine technology. The current use tends to describe the fuel. The engine manufacturers moved on. The fuel providers are selling to an installed base. They have years to run yet.

It occurs to me that you may not have been aware that “clean diesel” was an engine marketing campaign at the time the study was done. You appear to be interpreting it literally

You are completely free to do so. It is just unfortunate that you are actively working to serve the koolaid to others.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

....no fraud involved in Bosch's slogans from 2013 so your deception falls flat.

My deception?

The following link isn’t a scientific article. It is posted to provide historical context. Essentially, the world recognized years ago that “clean diesel” was an oxymoron. Well, most of the world, certainly the automakers, and their Tier 1 suppliers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/o...an-diesel.html

[kscherzi]

If the government could collect a dime for every post JCL and Bayoubiker make debating the merits of diesel trucks, the federal debt could be paid off!

I would calculate total cost of ownership by comparing price of Airstream less resale divided by nights camped. Of course resale is an estimate until its actually sold. With over 450 nights camped in my trailer purchased new in 2013, I'm at about $25 per night. Add in another $25 average paid for campsites and its about $50/night. Cheaper than a motel, and in many nicer places. Truck is what it is, it fits in my garage, a F150 ecoboost. Averaged 13.7 mpg on a 2,700 round trip to Arizona and back, I'm okay with that.

It was sunny with a high of 62 degrees today, think I'll drive up the hill to the snow near Tahoe and let the dog for a run while I'm in snowshoes tomorrow. Just got another foot of fresh snow. Taking the trailer to the local Indian Casino RV park in a couple weeks.