Gas or Diesel ... which is best?

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by Mekanic

AS I recall UPS bought some Sprinters years ago.


They got rid of them in a hurry. My friends that worked there told me the bodys were not holding up any where near acceptable levels.

Sprinters are notorious for body rust, now MB are telling people that RV's rusting are not an MB problem because the coach builder repainted them.

A fellow pilot has a 2011 MB Sprinter based rig, rust already starting to show in the usual spots. He said he's going to trade it this fall for a different RV on a North American chassis.

[nothermark]

Then there is always the bottom line that I have yet to find a layout on a Sprinter chassis that is reasonable for 2 people and a small dog. I regard reasonable as access to a queen bed from both sides, a bathroom that is usable including the shower, counter space to set the bag of groceries and a place to sit other than the dinette and watch a reasonably placed television.

[szn8tt]

Winnebago Trend. 24 ft gasser. 15 mpg. $25K less than MB Sprinter.

[StevenNSteph]

Originally Posted by elektron

I don't think you have made a valid comparison.

Seems that the Trucking, Rail, Shipping (ocean), and Bus industries don't agree with your assertion.

I ran a comprehensive study comparing the VW Jetta Diesel to the Toyota Prius.

I compared like sized gas RVs to like sized diesel RVs and the diesels cost slightly more to run per mile. If you want to compare planes, trains and automobiles that is your choice but that begs the question: Which one of us is not making valid comparisons???

Cheers

[elektron]

Originally Posted by StevenNSteph

I compared like sized gas RVs to like sized diesel RVs and the diesels cost slightly more to run per mile. If you want to compare planes, trains and automobiles that is your choice but that begs the question: Which one of us is not making valid comparisons???

Cheers

Show me your speadsheet and we can compare. As always the comparison criterion determines the validity of the test. I always start with the concept of using CURRENT technology, which helps to reduce errors.

This is a very exciting time as modern automotive technology has changed a great deal. I can hardly keep up with it.

[smiller]

You can make the cost comparison come out any way you want to if you try hard enough.

Bottom line, I'd take the diesel even if it did cost more.

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by elektron

Seems that the Trucking, Rail, Shipping (ocean), and Bus industries don't agree with your assertion.

I don't recall seeing an RV driven 500 miles a day 6 days a week 50 weeks a year hauling 25 tons.

Kerosene burners dominate the aviation industry too, but when it comes to GA (general aviation, the small stuff individuals own and fly) they're nearly unheard of.

Hmmmmm, in heavy trucks, ships, busses, railways and large jets diesel (kerosene, bunker C, etc.) rules and in small personal vehicles, boats and planes it's extremely rare.

Funny how so many millions and millions of people are so wrong huh?

[ElvistheKing]

An interesting discussion, over here in Europe we have been using diesel extensively for the last 20 years, I'd guess there are probably more diesel cars on the road than petrol even (and thats all sizes from VW polos up). I don't think I've seen a petrol panel van even that is not an import from the US or Japan (with the exception of a few that are dual LPG/Petrol). Most of this is driven by cost (our petrol is currently about $2.60 a liter, that is $9.83 a gallon if my maths is right).

Almost any modern (and a very broad definition of modern say <20 years) diesel engine has no problem with stop/starts (London Taxis have been diesel for decades) a long as it gets up to temperature but that occurs in about a mile, at which point why not just walk?!?

It's a shame you can't buy VW transporters over there lovely vans, plenty of umph, rock solid body, don't go wrong, etc. etc.

It does seem that a lot of the anti-diesels feeling is simply due to lack of experience with them?

Petrol vs Diesel in an RV, tough one, over here the vast majority of American RVs imported are actually petrols BUT virtually all of them are converted to run on LPG which we can buy for 1/2 the price of petrol, still horrendous to keep fueled but not a little easier on the pocket.I have no idea of the availability/rules/prices for doing this is the US but maybe that is something to explore?

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by ElvistheKing

An interesting discussion, over here in Europe we have been using diesel extensively for the last 20 years, I'd guess there are probably more diesel cars on the road than petrol even (and thats all sizes from VW polos up). I don't think I've seen a petrol panel van even that is not an import from the US or Japan (with the exception of a few that are dual LPG/Petrol). Most of this is driven by cost (our petrol is currently about $2.60 a liter, that is $9.83 a gallon if my maths is right).


It does seem that a lot of the anti-diesels feeling is simply due to lack of experience with them?

While your fuel price is the big factor over there, the price of gas here is still under $1.00 a litre in the US, $1.30 a litre in Canada.

There's lots of diesels around, but only where warranted by use or desired as a status symbol. The economics in a vehicle used sparingly really doesn't justify the ~$20,000 or often far more to purchase a diesel over a gasoline powered vehicle.

In a Motorhome for instance, even if one saved $0.25 / mile with a Diesel engine, a $20,000 engine option would take 80,000 (excluding any interest if money was borrowed to purchase it, or increased cost of service / maintenance) miles of driving before you even got your own money back let alone saving a single penny.

Considering the vast percentage of motorhomes that only drive 2,000 to 5,000 miles a year, the diesel is a really poor choice.

Propane doesn't really offer a realistic choice over here because of really spotty availability.

[ElvistheKing]

Fuel at that price I'd be doing a lot more than 2000-5000 miles a year....

[Showkey]

Originally Posted by elektron

If you look at RV Trader and find the Sprinters with DODGE emblems on the front, they DO NOT have the resale value that those with the Mercedes-Benz Tri-Star on the front do. This is perhaps why it is often said that nearly 90% of the Dodge branded Sprinter Chassis owners replaced the Dodge Emblem with the Tri-Star emblem. It's only about $300 to do this. But it can add saleability where Dodge itself is problematic. I see price differences for this reason alone in the THOUSANDS.

The Sprinters prior to 2010 also tend to have a terrible ODOR inside. It's the odor of Diesel Fuel and Exhaust. In this regard I am willing to offer a service for ONLY $500 of removing that odor for people. I'm in Central Maryland and will drive (In my Itasca) up to 500 miles at $1 per mile (additional to the $500 price) to deodorize your RV if the cause is ONLY the Diesel fuel odors in Sprinters that do not have Blue-Tech engines.

Throwing the BS flag on the above post...............clean diesel do not smell even during a below zero start.
In the Midwest the grill badge makes no difference.

[Murf2u]

There's lots of misinformation in this thread, for instance touting superior mileage while ignoring the 12+% smaller frontal area and thousands of pounds lighter vehicle.

With the exponential nature of wind resistance a 10% or 12% reduction is massive.

[Annierufus]

I had an 06 sprinter, and now a 2012, neither have any diesel related smells, 240k miles on the 06, 60k miles on the 2012 so far


Joe 1998 Itasca Sunflyer Ford 460

[smiller]

The last few pages of this thread have gone beyond silly. I don't now where in the world $20,000 for a gas/diesel purchase price differental (or any of the seemingly random numbers in this thread) came from but in apple-to-apple comparisons in vehicles where both a gas and diesel option is available (such as 3/4 or 1-ton pickups) the diesel option costs around $5k more. The Sprinter was only offered in a gas version for one year (didn't sell well vs. the diesel) but in that case the price differential was similar. And in those cases you hardly even need to use fuel savings as a justification because much of the purchase price difference is usually recovered at time of resale. If you compare a front-engine gas Class A to a DP then the difference may well be more than $20,000, but there are countless differences between the two vehicle classes besides just the engine.

Also regarding the 'smell' nonsense, never even heard that one before but FWIW BlueTec is used for NOx reduction and NOx has no detectable odor. Things like DPF will lessen diesel odor but that has been present on most vehicles since 2007, and of course even before then 'smell' wasn't really an issue. Also there is no doubt that diesel-powered vehicles are more fuel-efficient than an equivalent gas-powered version, that's just physics and a simple fact in the overwhelming majority of cases. Whether the difference is cost-effective vs. the purchase price and number of miles driven is a reasonable concern and is debatable in each individual circumstance, but the additional fuel effiency of a diesel engine is not.

It's true that for any single individual the additional functionality and longevity of a diesel chassis may not be cost effective and if that's the case then it's an individual decision to purchase or not. It's also worth pointing out that the reasons many prefer diesel powertrains are not strictly limited to fuel economy so looking at in a tit-for-tat cost analysis alone represents a rather narrow view. This thread has devolved into a somewhat comical 'diesel hater' tirade so it's pretty much at its end, but the bottom line is that if you don't feel that a diesel drivetrain is worth it to you then simply don't buy one, that's all the 'justification' you need. Regardless, for some reason diesel drivetrains seem to be immensely popular in RV applications, go figure...