2005 Volkswagen Jetta TDI: The Diesel Experience

Okay...just let me get this straight:
 
So the 2005 Jetta TDI is 1 second slower than a 21-year-old GTI and you are telling me that it's some sort of an accomplishment?
 
What if I tell you that the 2008 BMW 335d is 1 second slower than the 1988 M3? would you still tell me that it's an accomplishment?
 
In the world of "just fine" I think 99.9% of the cars (both old and new) would pass the test. However, the Jetta TDI with it's 11-sec 0-60 should be simply "disturbing" by Inside Line's enthusiastic standard.

0-60 mph is such a useless number for things like freeway on ramps, since you are moving at some speed 5-10 mph anyway. Most cars bog down in their times from 5-60 mph or even worse 30-60 mph. I like diesels, hate VW's lack of reliability. Too many small things break and the dealers are too eager to dismiss you as being too picky. Many won't fix the small things twice.
Where I have moved to diesel in New England is 50 cents more per gallon than Regular and 30 cents more per gallon than Premium! This will hurt the sales of new diesel cars in this area. Diesel fuel is just too expensive right now.

Louis,
 
As tiff said, 0-60 doesn't really define day-to-day driving.
 
My 05 Saab 9-2x Aero (WRX wagon) would do 0-60 in about 6 seconds, but it was a total dog driving it below 3000 rpms in day-to-day traffic. I was scared for my life the first time I entered an intersection and shifted to 2nd at 8mph...
 
On the other hand, the Jetta. When driven at low rpms, it's always got power on tap.
 
It's when you try to race it that it falls flat.
 
Joe

well said,
 
people have gotten so obsessed with 0-60 times and then gripe about poor mpg.
 
There is usefull power and then there is the act like a 16 year old that doesn't have a brain sort of power.
 
It cracks me up when I read about cars that are 'lacking power' that do 0-60 in just over 8 seconds. Now if that lacking power comment comes from the driveability of the car in the rear world then by all means mention it. If it feels like you are having to floor it just to get away from a stop then that would be an issue.
If you just can't dragrace every idiot you encounter on the road then that isn't really a problem for the 90%+ sane drivers on the road.

Comparisons to the modern diesel engines from Subaru and Honda wouldn't really be fair either as the TDI we get here uses lower pressure injection than the common rail variety.
 
I seem to recall only in the last year has VW started producing high pressure diesel engines with piezoelectric injectors, more up to date technology, so on.
 
37mpg in enthusiastic driving is not bad for a car in the US.

Wow- I can't believe what I'm reading. 8 paragraphs to prove that this slug isn't slow. Acceleration is one of the top pillars of automotive journalism and hear we have a complete paradigm shift. Just goes to show that these folks will make any excuse for the cars that they like.
  
Plentiful low end torque is not a new concept or something unique to diesels. GM's pushrods have been making huge torque off idle for years yet they've been universally panned for low hp/l or lack of top end zip. Despite their larger displacements, they achieved essentially the same mileage as the lower displacement engines of equal HP (think 3800 V6 vs Accord/Camry 3.0Ls- same horsepower and fuel economy with completely different torque curves).

Good points Chavis, but the added issue here is mpgs. If they're having no problems with nutso LA traffic day to day, and getting 37 mpg while doing it, no hybrid driving tricks required, that's a major accomplishment. I'm looking forward to seeing what the new-gen diesels can do, in driveability, mileage, and cost.

However, it's kind of interesting to note that diesel costs about 10% more than unleaded and returns about 10% more mileage than a comparable econo-car. I think it's more of a tradeoff than an outright win for diesel. For example, I average 31-32mpg in my Fit and pay substantially less for gas. My car was much cheaper and is much more reliable, and faster as well. In exchange, I lose low-end torque.
 
I Paid $15,800 for my Fit Sport, and the base model starts at just $14,600. You paid $17,200 for a similarly economy-minded car with 50k miles on it!

Valid and interesting points, bemanix88.....I'm still a diesel fan and I'm looking forward to the new day of modern diesels just around the corner.
 
I am puzzled by something though; isn't diesel fuel much less refined than gas (especially premium)? Why or how is it possible that it can be more expensive at the pump?

Chavis -
 
Diesels provide low-end torque and no top end in exchange for very good fuel economy.
 
GM pushrods provide low-end torque and not much top end without offering superior fuel economy.
 
How hard is that to understand why one is thought of differently than another?
 
GM pushrods have been making large torque off idle, much like diesels. And they are perfectly adequate for everyday driving...
 
But they did so by being larger engines, which tended to be heavier engines. They didn't offer better fuel economy, usually matching the fuel economy offerings of the smaller engines by having widely spaced gearing to go with their torque off idle.
 
So, let's straighten this out:
 
Car enthusiasts usually like either
 
A. Engines that rev freely, produce good power throughout the rev range including the top-end and get decent fuel economy.
 
B. Engines that have lots of torque off idle and get fantastic fuel economy. Doesn't hurt that they also tend to be smaller engines leading to a lighter front end.
 
GM chose to use push-rod technology for a long time because it produced good low-end power, market-acceptable fuel economy, and was a tried-and-true technology. Fair enough. Journalists chose to not love that move because it lead to several non-journalist friendly things:
 
1. Journalists like to thrash the cars they test drive. It's part of their job. GM push-rods tended to fall flat at higher rpms as well as produce large amounts of NVH.
 
2. Journalists don't like understeer alot. Putting larger, heavier engines into the front of those cars tended to produce more understeer.
 
But I guess these are all excuses, right?
 
No logic or reality behind it at all.
 
Joe

Rick - A few reasons come to mind:
 
Supply
Demand
Taxation

Excellent post! To hear some people talk, you'd think one would get killed driving any vehicle that doesn't accelerate in less than 7 seconds. My previous car was an 04 WRX which, as Joe pointed out below, was horrifyingly slow at low rpms...yet I managed to put 40,000 safe miles on that car. I had to sell it and buy a pickup -- an 01 Frontier with a 4cyl and a manual transmission -- and I can safely say that I am officially the slowest car on the road now with the possible exception of old VWs. And yet, I drive that truck every day in CA traffic and it does just fine. It takes more planning (downshifting at the mere suggestion of a hill) but I can get that truck up to freeway speeds just fine, even without winding the engine up past 3500 rpms. I'm totally convinced my next car will be a diesel, and this long-termer may end up being my favorite of your lot!

bkaiser1, so you are that slow a** Frontier in front of me the other day on 99...

Excellent post. HP gets all the attention, but torque characteristics are just as important, if not more so, in determining how well a car drives.
 
Diesel is probably more of a trade-off than an outright superior alternative. It does have more merit than people give it credit for, but it is also not the silver bullet solution. The new Malibu is a little heavy for its class and posts lower peak hp numbers than the Accord, Altima and Camry, but it stays right in there in acceleration tests.

When I owned a 300SD several years ago, I found that diesel fuel prices were extremely season-dependent. In the summer, prices were lower than regular unleaded. When cold weather hit, diesel (which is essentially the same as home heating oil) skyrocketed. And central Georgia isn't exactly a cold climate.

"Journalists don't like understeer alot. Putting larger, heavier engines into the front of those cars tended to produce more understeer. "
 
A pushrod engine isnt necessarily heavier than a "smaller" DOHC engine. The size of an engine as we measure it is only the displacement of its cylinders. It has nothing to do with the dimensions or weight of the engines. A 3.5L aluminum OHV engine would likely weigh less than a 3L DOHC engine.
 
his point was that OHV engines have been blasted for being low revving and for having low specific output. diesels suffer from both issues although they do generate better fuel economy than gas engines. Any way you cut it 0-60 in 11secs is pathetic. 37mpg is nice, but if you put an equally weak gas engine in the Jetta you would get results that arent too far off that. People today demand a certain level of engine performance and its far more performance than was acceptable in 1984. We want efficiency but not necessarily at the expense of acceleration, at least not to this degree. I think the Prius is faster than this.

joefrompa: Displacement isn't size or weight.

Phrases like "more than sufficient" "never hamstrung by a lack of performance" and "wasn't hampered by this powertrain" are thrown about to justify the stance that the performance really is "just fine" for an 11.0 second 0-60 run. But if you compare this with the 9.7 second run to 60 for the LT Focus, and you get phrases like "geriatric" "pretty depressing" and "tall, widely spaced gearing hurts acceleration and emphasizes the lack of power".
  
I understand that you're just reporting your impressions of the driving experience. It's subjective. But come on. Let's turn down the subjectivity a little and turn up the objectivity.

" Paid $15,800 for my Fit Sport, and the base model starts at just $14,600. You paid $17,200 for a similarly economy-minded car with 50k miles on it!"
 
Bemanix99 - You're way off base with your comparison. A Jetta is a much larger car, and a much more upscale car than a Fit. The Honda Fit is a sub-compact economy car. The Jetta is a mid size German sedan (some would say sports sedan, although I'm not sure I would go that far). Just look at the dimensions of both cars - they are not in the same class.
 
Your 10% fuel economy difference is not an apples to apples comparison. Diesels consistently produce 30% better fuel economy than gas engines of similar torque output. The proper comparison is to put a diesel in your Fit with the same torque as your gas motor. A diesel Fit would get 30% better fuel economy than your gas Fit does.

Yes, you are right that displacement does not equal weight (the newest example is that the new 4.0 liter M3 engine weighs ~30 pounds less than the 3.2 liter M3 engine of the 01-06 generation).
 
Can someone please show me the weight of the 2003-2007 Accord 3.0 liter V6 vs. the same generation GM 3.8 liter V6?
 
1487 - I'd really like to see more 5-60 comparisons...not nearly enough on here. Everyone posts 0-60, but that tells you more about a car's traction setup than about it's powerband or real-world acceleration.
 
My SI posts around a 6.7 0-60...not exactly "pathetic" territory....but it's 5-60 drops substantially. The old 2.0 liter WRX engine, famous for it's 5.8 second 0-60's, was even worse....
 
0-60 in 11 seconds is perfectly adequate for a car dedicated to economy. It joins the ranks of such cars as the Prius, Civic Hybrid, Aveo....heck, my wife's saturn Ion posted a 10 second 0-60 on one car-rag/info source. And that thing is not exactly Mrs. Economy.
 
So why exactly is 0-60 in 11 seconds pathetic? It's comparable to it's competitors and doesn't have any real-world accelerative value.
 
To play the bias card, again, if the same thing was said about a base model 4-cylinder domestic model, it would be considered ridiculous because that car is tuned for economy and not performance.
 
Same thing here.
 
Joe

Joe-
  
Before you try and take me to school, let's revisit some of your errors:
  
#1- Most pushrod engines are lighter and/or more compact than their OHC counterparts of equal power output. An industry secret was that Nissan studied the 3800 to discover ways to shrink the outside wrapper of their own VQ, this despite its narrow 60 degree Vee (3800 was based on a 90 V8). I will cite the article whenever I find it as I'm sure no one will ever believe that.
  
#2- Displacement has absolutely nothing to do with exterior size or total engine mass. 7.0L LS7 is lighter than the 5.0L BMW V10. Both engines produce ~ the same power while the low tech fixed timing LS7 produces MUCH more torque, is balanced unlike the V10 which negates any potential NHV while having half the total reciprocating mass. Advantage: Pushrod.
  
#3- High torque engines move heavier vehicles MORE efficiently than a low torque engine. This is just simple physics as HP is the rate at which torque is applied. Torque is a force so if two engines have equal HP, the one with higher torque will have an easier time moving the said mass. Low torque engines are only effective in lightweight applications while high torque engines can either motivate heavy vehicles with marginal economy or move light cars with superior economy do to exaggerated tall gearing (think 6L 400hp Vette netting 28 mpg highway).
  
Case in point- 3455 lbs '98 Olds Intrique- 3.8L 12 valve 195hp/220lbs-ft 19/30 mpg vs 3230 lbs '98 Camry LE V6 3.0L 24 valve 194/209 19/26 mpg. Both had identical 0-60 times of 7.7 secs. The simple fact is that these slower revving engines gave up nothing in performance, just in PERCEIVED performance (ie "quality" of sound as the engine revs)
  
Therefore, if you installed the 3800 in the Camry, it would've SPANKED the toyota powered Camry in acceleration and fuel economy. Advantage: Pushrod.
  
You could argue over the intangibles all day, but as a scientific experiment, these intrinsic OHC advantages were largely moot before the advent of variable cam phasing and variable intake manifolds. Those are just the facts buddy.
  
My beef with the media's new found obsession with diesels is:
  
#1- #2 diesel cost MORE than premium fuel
#2- #2 diesel is not readily available the way gasoline is
#3- The additional cost for a diesel vehicle offsets any potential efficiency savings the driver might incur
#4- Diesel fuel doesn't resolve any of the petroleum issues
  
So once again, we have all these companies clamoring for diesel related press releases to appease the narrow focused media. Lutz seems to be the only higher up who has openly panned this new found US diesel ideal. It's not that the engines aren't good (the upper level ones that is- most European standard diesels are way too slow/crude for our needs), its that they cost too much and our emissions standards are not favorable to their quirks.
  
My entire point was that the press has once again jumped on a bandwagon as if diesels have pulled the proverbial rabbit out of their hat by having excellent fuel economy with no trade offs. Properly applied large displacement gas engines hit closer to the bulls eye if you look at the entire scope (cost, performance, economy, etc)
 
PS- previous M3 has a huge cast iron block which is the main reason it weighed more than the new all alloy 4L V8

People who magazine race cars don't understand that though. They see turbo AWD 4-bangers putting out numbers like 5.5 0-60 and just stop reading there. What they don't see is that what produces that kind of launch is usually super-high rpm clutch dumping to avoid engine bogging. Not only is this hugely destructive to the driveline, but who really drives that way?
 
5-60 is much more realistic in terms of real world driving, and in that realm many of the high-strung econo cars are much, much worse than what you read about. Things like this TDI are much less frustrating to drive on a daily basis for anyone not totally committed to race-car-style driving.

I am loving this series of blogs on the TDI in real world USA driving situations!
I think it can be valuable to do a article on "educating" drivers on this "new" technology and breaking through petrol-based measuring sticks and perceptions of slow, smoky diesels.

Hey Chavis,
 
I wasn't trying to take you to task for knowledge. Just for assumptions. Most of which you didn't address, so I'll move on as well.
 
"Properly applied large displacement gas engines hit closer to the bulls eye if you look at the entire scope (cost, performance, economy, etc) "
 
Howso? Large displacement engines are still pretty stuck at around 25-27mpg highway (yes, some can get 28mpg in pure highway driving in applications with the least frontal area and drag coefficient). And if you take them off the highway, they drink more fuel at idle and in trafficky driving than their lower.
 
Meanwhile, diesel engines HAVE advanced significantly in recent years. They've become very clean, more and more economical (fuel wise), and their output has grown substantially.
 
Lets review a few engines that are coming over:
 
Subaru Boxer Diesel: 2.0 liter turbocharged version puts out 148 HP and ~250 torque....gets around 50-60mpg.
 
BMW 3.0 liter bi-turbo diesel: 285 HP and 425 lb/ft torque and gets a combined 30-32mpg.
 
Acura I-Dtec engine: Not much info here. Supposedly around 2.2 liters and puts around 180 HP and ~300 lb/ft of torque...this is kind of loose information garnered from one of the temple of vtec guys...
 
These engines use tried and true technology. Incredibly durable design. Offer increasing economy (Prius and Civic Hybrid levels). And their performance is fast becoming pretty serious. That Subie diesel offers around a 8.5 second 0-60....imagine what it's in-gear passing power is...
 
Why are diesels so big all of the sudden? Because it's much less of a fad, much less difficult to imagine, and it still has a long way to go.
 
And, heck, who the heck doesn't want 425 lb/fts and over 30 mpg on a combined cycle?
 
Joe

Dan: Excellent post! You make some terrific points that quite a few auto writers tend to miss. It's also important to know that this is the old Jetta TDI that was introduced in 1999. The new Jetta 2.0 TDI to be imported into the States this year supposedly makes 170 HP and 244 lb-ft torque, with improved responsiveness and smotther operation. Is it any wonder that 50% of all new car sales in Europe are diesels? As to some comments about the higher cost of diesel fuel, the new Jetta will get 40 MPG City and as high as 60 MPG Highway which should more than offset the higher cost per gallon. I can't wait to see what you guys think of that model when you have a chance to test it!

Stingray: I'm not sure I'd agree with you. The Fit has more interior room and cargo capacity and is still quicker, with a small penalty in fuel economy. The VW has some nicer features, but given the compromises I'd still get the subcompact. The Jetta is very similar to the Golf anyways.
 
I understand that diesels CAN offer a big boost in mileage, but not as the US market stands right now. I don't think it makes much sense to buy a Jetta TDI and especially not a $17k one with 50k on the clock. You will definitely never recoup the premium, and you will be spewing pollutants and dealing with VW reliability issues.

I think people are getting the wrong idea here. This 2005 Jetta TDI is not a new generation diesel (aka BLUETEC, etc). It is old school so comparing this technology to modern gasoline engines is a very apples to oranges comparison. The new Jetta TDI BLUETEC (or whatever VW is calling it) that is set to debut this year offers 0-60 times in the 8 second range and returns 10% better fuel economy than this generation.
 
Diesels still have their shortcomings, certainly, but modern technology is doing for them what it has for regular gasoline engines. Just something to think about.

The internet is full of unsourced, unqualified weights.
 
The entry for "Buick V6" on answers.com states the once ubiquitous GM 3.8 from 1995 onwards weighs 399 lbs. (Dry? What parts does that include? Source? who knows.) The same article states that that is 22 lbs heavier than the GM high feature V6 - but doesn't say whether that means the 2.8 or the 3.6.
 
There is a "engine weight/size" list that shows up on the forums from time to time, a copy of which is available on gomog.com (I am not typing the whole link because I don't want to break the board formatting.)
 
That list includes the Honda's 2.0L 1997 Civic engine at 318, and the "24V Acura Legend motor" at 491 (!) lbs. The 3.0L V6 from a 1994 Toyota Camry is listed at 401.
 
Take with a large grain of salt.

Joe- You're still missing it brother. The PRICE of these new modern diesels is simple ridiculous. When cost is taken into account, they are no better than hybrids from a financial standpoint. The simple fact is that your country is not condusive to passenger diesel vehicles(yet?). The press ignores this because as I said, they are inherent bandwagon riders and are usually out of touch with the real consumer. Go to europe and see how the average midlevel diesel performs before you all good hyped. It's like advertising the Accord/Camry 268 hp V6 when 80% are sold with the 4 banger. Just wait till you see the price of the new 335d.

Hey Chavis,
 
I'm not sure I know what you are talking about with the pricing...but I also think we need to wait and see how the BMW prices it's new models, VW/Audi it's new diesels, Honda/Acura, and if Subaru brings it's new boxer diesels over...
 
If they are priced ridiculously, well then so beit. They won't be a good value.
 
From what I understand, the BMW 335d will come in around 41k US compared to 39k for the 335i (sedans). But the 335d comes standard with the automatic transmission (no manual offering), a ~$1200 option. $800 for significantly better (30%) fuel economy? Not too bad.
 
But that's only one example.
 
I haven't driven a diesel car yet. Any at all. So maybe I'll hate it. But, as other posters have pointed out, diesels in the last few years have suddenly exploded with new technology. There outputs and economy have both, simultaneously, begun to rise significantly. An amazing feat.
 
On the front page of this website right now, BMW is touting a mild-hybrid turbo diesel 2.0 liter putting out ~200 HP and almost 300 lb/ft of torque. Usable in their X5 (which is great, because it'll be built in the US).
 
I, still, am very impressed by VW's FSI 2.0 liter turbo 4....200 HP/torque and solid fuel economy. But BMW's new one is said to get (per the article) 36 mpg in the X5.
 
And that two liter can certainly be used well beyond a truck platform.
 
So I'm excited, personally. At a time when automakers can't seem to break the 30mpg standard while offering market-demand performance, we are seeing great strides made in another area: diesels and diesel hybrids and turbodiesels.
 
Offering 35-40-45-50mpg in a wide range of applications, while beginning now to offer really solid acceleration.
 
Now I'm confused. I wanted the BMW 335i engine...it seems like the current pinnacle of engine capabilities....but now I'm wondering if I should hold out and enjoy a new generation of economical goodness while still enjoying a very torquey low end...
 
Joe

To be fair, diesel has approximately 10% more energy than gasoline per volume...meaning an apples to apples comparison is about 33 mpg for the VW. However, there are no small displacement, forced induction engines offered in the US market in midsize cars. No, the real advantage of diesel is the ability to use bio-fuel which allows for a closed carbon loop and doesn't involve disrupting the food supply (like with ethanol driving up corn prices) or completely new infrastructure (as with hydrogen). Plus it's proven technology and conversion could be drop-in for existing vehicles.

Two comments here from my own self:
 
One, I used to own a 2002 GOLF TDI (bought brand new in CA after an A4 1.8T) and it was a manual and had only 90 hp! I never had any problem keeping up in LA traffic with that puppy. I hated the car due to some other shortcomings: The AC stank like you wouldn't believe it and the engine idled irregularly. Oh, and than there was the issue with the check engine light that kept coming on...loved the engine itself though. Fuel economy was in the low 40ies.
 
Second, I recall that around 1998/99 edmunds used to have a yellow TDI Beetle in the LT fleet. It must have had a very similar 1.9 l engine like the current 05 Jetta. Did you guys forget about that one?

Hi Guys... I thought TDI was actually an acronym for Turbo w/ Direct Injection, since this fuel delivery method was new with this style VW diesel?

You may have won the prize, my friend. If there had been a prize, that is, which there isn't.
 
I say may because your entry may well be the letter-for-letter breakdown of the acronym TDI--at least originally. But now we have gasoline engines that are both turbocharged and direct-injected. Example: Mazda CX-7. By your definition, you could call it a TDI, too, at least technically.
 
In the VW/Audi case, the term TDI was always applied to their turbocharged diesel engines with direct injection. But in 2003, an EU court ruled that it wasn't a valid trademark, so I guess anyone could use it now.
 
So which is better now that direct injection is no longer tantamount to diesel? Should the "D" stand for Diesel or Direct?
 
I didn't want to get into that, so I plucked the salient points for my post: turbo and diesel. Acronym weariness indeed.

Hmmm. My guess was, TDI is an initialism (not an acronym, which is an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word) for a term in German, but the English Wikipedia article for TDI says it does stand for Turbocharger and Direct Injection. The German article doesn't seem to indicate a German term that matches up with the letters TDI.
  
"Should the 'D' stand for Diesel or Direct? "
  
If it stands for diesel, then what does the I stand for?
  
Anyway, I vaguely remember reading a long time ago that 'ABS' originated as a German abbreviation. Remember the Honda Preludes that had 'ALB' (for 'anti-lock brakes') badges?

I always heard "ABS" as "antilock braking system." I cringe when someone refers to "ABS brakes"--probably the same people who type their "PIN number" into an "ATM machine."
 
Relevance: I'm pretty sure TDI is "turbo direct injection," as VW was trying to emphasize the car's power rather than its dieselness. Thus "TDI Diesel" would be appropriate, but "TDI Turbo" would be redundant.

Well, sorry to bring up a sore spot... I work in an industry (pharmaceuticals) with about 20,000+ acronyms, so I guess they come naturally! I only remembered the TDI thing vaguely from watching Flash animations of the combustion process on VW's website in the early 2000's... sad indeed... I guess I've always liked "left-handed" cars. But I think stephen987 has it correct, considering the current state of things :)

stephen987: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABS says, "translated from German, Antiblockiersystem." I don't speak German, but it seems to me that anti-lock braking system isn't an exact translation of Antiblockiersystem. I suspect anti-lock braking system was coined to fit the initialism ABS.

chavis10 -- I too was dubious of the value of diesel engined cars, but then I did some actual research. I was quite surprised by the results. Here are some points you made earlier:
 
#1- diesel cost MORE than premium fuel
#2- diesel is not readily available the way gasoline is
#3- The additional cost for a diesel vehicle offsets any potential efficiency savings the driver might incur
#4- Diesel fuel doesn't resolve any of the petroleum issues
 
I'm going to address point #1 and #3.
 
I did a hypothetical comparison between a 2005 Jetta diesel and 2.0L Jetta gas engined cars. Using the numbers off of Edmunds.com pages, and sending these cars on a 330 mile trip. I then took their average mpg (city + Hwy / 2) into the 330 mile distance, and then used the fuel prices for that day to calculate how much it would cost to fill the tank back up. Both cars have the same sized tank.
 
What I found is that the 2.0L Jetta used 12 gal of fuel which would cost $36 to fill up. The diesel Jetta used 7.9 gal of fuel and the fill up would cost $26.
 
Interesting, isn't it? Even though diesel costs more, you're still saving $10 on every fill up. One fill up a week will save you $540 over a gas car (conceivably).
 
So, getting a used diesel Jetta isn't such a bad deal after all.

TDI actually stands for "Turbo Diesel Injection".
  
Before the "TDI" VW used to sell Turbo Diesel cars with a "TD" badge. The addition of the "I" was just to emphasize the new technology. In the 80ies and early 90ies most cars that were sold in europe were not equipped with an fuel injection systems but were still carburated (of course not diesel engines, which always had an injection system). The "i" at the end of BMW's model numbers as well as the "E" at the end of MB's "300E" or "500SE" or "190E" used to all stand for injection ("Einspritzeung" in the case of Mercedes). In Germany you could buy a 280S ore a 280 SE.
Even the "I" in "GTI" was for injection.
VW/AUDI added the "I" to the turbodiesel's "TD" to give it the "GTI" aura; a performance version of a diesel. It now has become a major trademark in europe for fun and efficient engines. It is difficult for people in the US to understand how a 90 hp diesel could be view as such but when viewed through Euro-eyes where plenty of cars are sold with engines that are smaller than 2 liters it does make more sense.
  
You can still buy an A4 Audi or a 3 series BMW with 1.6 liter gasoline engines!!!

Interesting convo, but the question remains - is the mainstream US buyer ready for the return of the diesel?
 
Also, it seems that TDI stands for "Turbocharged Direct Injection" as previously indicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharged_Direct_Injection