With news about high diesel prices everyday, do you think it still makes sense to run a diesel car compared to a petrol one (assuming like for like comparison)?
|
very doubtful in monetary terms.
Fuel economy at any temperature near zero, possibly not.
however, I do enjoy the way they drive !
So much more relaxed way of life.
|
It depends very heavily on mileage.
I've run two E90 3 series in the past year. One 318i petrol, one 318d diesel.
I worked out the 318d costs about £40 per 1000 miles less to fuel, and costs about £3k more to buy. So the maths aren't too convincing unless you do a lot of miles.
Of course there's lower VED and better residual values to consider, which will help the diesel case, but I reckon under 20k a year, you'd be very hard pushed to make a financial case over three years, and even then you'd need to think about it.
The diesel is MUCH nicer to drive though. :-)
|
Depends on you use, high mileage long runs then probably yes, depending on make/model.
Best value for fuelling IMO is petrol equivalent and good LPG conversion with sensible sized tank, though much depends on your locality and availablity and LPG is not for those of a nervous disposition.
When considering like for like most people don't, they compare a 2 litre turbocharged Diesel to a NA 2 litre or more often a 1.8 petrol and then claim the petrol has no torque, apples and oranges comparison.
Be interesting to see how the latest engines with multiple turbo and supercharger combinations fare as they age, i forsee some eye watering bills that will wipe out any fuel savings and then some.
I reckon the future is hybrids and other alternatives.
|
We have two 2 litre (give or take) turbcharged cars; one a petrol Audi 2.0T and one a MB 250 CDI.
Though diffferent types of car there are similarities that make the comparison interesting, IMO. The Audi is a convertible which, at a guess weights around 1,600kg, and the Merc an estate weighing around 1,800 kg. In broad terms both deliver around 200 bhp, though the diesel offers a huge amount more torque.
Performance wise there's not a lot in it, though you can feel that the A4 is lighter and it picks up quicker too. The Audi has a 6 speed manual 'box compared to the MBs 7 speed auto, but in day to day driving both being turbocharged means that they have similar characteristics; no need to use kick-down or drop gears to pick up speed on a motorway for example. The petrol engine naturally revs much higher and, if you use the full extent of the rev counter, it's more urgent though less refined (and somewhat thirstier; driven briskly it's easy to average less than 25mpg on A/B roads)
Economy wise though the A4 will, at best, do low 30's to a tank when the diesel MB will do low 40s The fuel price difference is less relevant in our case since the VAG 2.0T is supposed to be fed on super unleaded, and indeed ours has had a diet almost exclusively of Shell V Power since new. Despite that, going 15 ~ 20% further on a gallon still makes diesel the better bet when compared to regular unleaded, which is less than 10% more than diesel round us.
It just remains to be seen if the cheaper fuel cost is offeset by higher servicing; the petrol A4 2.0T has been remarkably cheap to service over 50k miles / 4 years, so let's see how a diesel compares...
Just my thoughts
Peter
|
|
Apart from the high price of diesel, I would be very weary of buying a used oil burner due to the complexity of the modern diesel engine along with the use of more and more electronic components etc.,
|
>> Apart from the high price of diesel, I would be very weary of buying a
>> used oil burner due to the complexity of the modern diesel engine
And if its of older simpler design has someone been feeding it a diet of comedy fuels.
|
£30 tax, 57mpg, no DPF..lots of low down torque, no DMF,...
What's not to like?
(Of course if you buy a badly designed diesel from most carp manufacturers...:-)
|
Strikes me there's a lot of scared-ey cats here !
I go on buses and buy second hand diesels. So far so good !
|
|
For my car, going diesel was a no brainer as it's a company car and therefore taxed based on emissions. If it was a private car then I'd have considered going for the 2.0T. I don't do huge private mileage. List price of my car and the 2.0T model has the petrol one slightly cheaper.
|
>>I go on buses and buy second hand diesels. So far so good !<<
You'll be buying The Sun soon, to read while sipping that cheap gin.
:)
|
Too many big words for the likes of me. Beano man me.
:-)
|
>>Beano man me<<
Same here, plus The Beezer and The Dandy.
:o)
|
For me a small engined petrol engine was the way to go, a diesel Panda would have cost 30% more to buy but would probably save me no more than £300 a year in fuel if that. They are also more complicated to service.
If you do low mileage (in my case 6-7k a year) and it is all city work a small petrol engine is the best way.
|
Surprised nobody's mentioned resale values yet. As I may have mentioned on some other threads, I'm looking at big estate cars, generally a year or two old. This market is entirely diesel; there are petrol versions of the Mercedes E and Volvo V70, but to judge from the used market they are paper products only - no-one has actually bought one, or at least wants to sell it now. VAG has better petrol engines, so there a few TSI Superbs and A6s out there, but I imagine even they'll be tough to sell on in a few years time, and a petrol car would have to be much cheaper than a diesel to tempt me.
So in my case, the lowish annual mileage might suggest petrol, but simple market forces are pushing strongly towards diesel.
|
. This market is
>> entirely diesel; there are petrol versions of the Mercedes E and Volvo V70, but to
>> judge from the used market they are paper products only - no-one has actually bought
>> one, or at least wants to sell it now.
Its the absurd VED debacle thats caused this, CO2 is the only thing that counts.
|
Notwithstanding the pros and cons, and in direct contradiction of a view I used to hold, I simply prefer the way diesel cars drive now to petrol ones and while it wouldn't bother me too much either way, I'd sooner have an automatic than a manual too. Must be getting old.
I shall be disliking low profile tyres soon and may even begin to think of winter tyres as being an essential accessory, I can feel it building in me. It's those chinos. Knew it was the beginning of the end.
|
Its the absurd VED debacle thats caused this, CO2 is the only thing that counts.
Sorry GB, that's poppycock. The difference between a £150 VED and a £245 one is trivial next to the costs of fuel and depreciation over a year. No sane person would make it more than a minor factor in the decision process. You can't blame the politicians for this one.
}:---)
|
The difference in availability between petrol and diesel second hand will be influenced by BIK based on CO2 for company cars. A lot of these will have been company cars.
But diesels are preferable for some people for driving regardless. I'd seriously consider a turbo petrol next time but I might miss the mid-range torque from a fairly powerful diesel.
|
And if you're buying a 5-year-old car, does it make any difference to the price? Or a car which is 90% depreciated?
At that point IMO diesel wins hands down.
Oh yes, and if you have a French motoring holiday that also helps.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 27 Feb 12 at 18:18
|
I am happy with our diesel the 1.6 110 HP TDCI.Engine is nicely loosend up now.(Focus)
Can't see fuel prices coming down we have to pay our debts you know.
|
I have owned diesels for over 20 years but due to the introduction of DPFs my next car will have a petrol engine. I will hang on to my DPF free Ceed SW for as long as possible. I live 5 minutes drive from a motorway but I am not going to be dictated to by a car as to when I can use it and what for. Same for the joke electric cars.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 27 Feb 12 at 18:59
|
|
I think in most cases a diesel car will still fetch a higher price at five years than its petrol equivalent, because of perceived lower costs and a - maybe outdated - view that diesel is a good long-term prospect. At 90% depreciated, I'd agree, running cost greatly outweighs purchase cost - if you believe an old diesel does cost less to run.
|
that's poppycock. The difference between a £150 VED and a £245 one is
>> trivial next to the costs of fuel and depreciation over a year.
No it isn't poppycock because i was referring to proper engines likely to attract £450 VED in petrol form, yno one who enjoys cars would want a petrol auto Volvo or Benz with a just about do engine, the mere thought sends shivers.
|
Even £450 is only £300 more than a more typical modern car - trivial by comparison with an extra £1500 on fuel. And yes, I know there's LPG - for a little while - although what is the point of a big car if you need another one for your luggage because you've filled the boot with a gas tank is beyond me.
The VED rates are window dressing to make people think, perhaps because many never truly count the cumulative cost of filling the tank. It's no good complaining about it - sorry to play the age card but your generation have had their fun with big cars and other forms of excessive consumption and now it's over. Big petrol engines - followed by all internal combustion engines - will soon seem as relevant as steam and horse brasses. Until then, you can still have one, but accept that the wider world regards it as antisocial and pay up.
|
>> Until then, you can still have one, but accept that the wider world
>> regards it as antisocial and pay up.
>>
Have you been to the middle east, Monaco, Australia, or USA recently? Plenty of gas guzzlers where the taxation is less.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 27 Feb 12 at 20:11
|
|
It depends what colour the diesel is.
|
will soon seem as relevant as steam and
>> horse brasses. Until then, you can still have one, but accept that the wider world
>> regards it as antisocial and pay up.
>>
You live your utopian dream.
As for vehicles heavy on fuel, i lost count of the thousands of V8 petrol engined Range Rovers, Disco and Jags i and my oppo's took to ports for exports to other countries, often the ones we send money to to help with their climate control.
Diesel were but a handful in comparison and usually going into Europe.
|
|
The UKs contribution to the worlds CO2 output is so small that if it was reduced to zero it would make stuff all difference. It is scam taxation in the UK.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 27 Feb 12 at 20:33
|
To paraphrase your argument, GB, in terms I used to hear a lot when my children were smaller:
It's not FAAAAAAIR!
Bit undignified at your time of life, isn't it?
As for ON's well-worn 'scam taxation', do you imagine, even if the argument had any merit, that HMG would raise its pinstriped arms aloft and say, "Sorry chaps, we shouldn't be taxing emissions like that. We'll just manage without that chunk of revenue from now on"? Come on, governments have always taxed consumption, and it's always been possible to reduce your tax liability by making tax-friendly decisions. CO2-based taxation is no different.
|
|
Maybe its for all our good in the long run high fuel prices.Kids might walk to go to school.And if you can't afford to run a car do without.I grew up using a bicycle or bus, a car was never a right.
|
>>Kids might walk to go to school<<
And pigs might learn to fly Dutchie ;)
Neither of my parents owned a car, we used to have a pony called Shank's.
|
WdB, its quite obvious i have done or said something thats got up your nose, so i have a proposition as i can't be doing with you any more.
You ignore me and my posts and i'll ignore you and yours, fair enough?
|
>>you can still have one, but accept that the wider world regards it as antisocial and pay up. >>
Not so - only the PC correct, tree-hugging brainwashed, liberal lefties regard it as anti-social.
I would bet that the vast majority of people, including lying politicians of all main parties, only pay lip-service to all this green taxing nonsense, so as to seem to be on-message with the propagandists who are so vociferous with their propaganda. People are so influenced by their desire to be seen to be trendy in their political opinions, that they embrace weasel words and ideas in which they do not believe.
At the end, most people are motivated by self interest (rightly so) and cost, not perceived concern for anything else, will prevail.
Bah humbug.
|
>> that's poppycock. The difference between a £150 VED and a £245 one is
>> >> trivial next to the costs of fuel and depreciation over a year.
>>
>> No it isn't poppycock because i was referring to proper engines likely to attract £450
>> VED in petrol form, yno one who enjoys cars would want a petrol auto Volvo
>> or Benz with a just about do engine, the mere thought sends shivers.
>>
I only went to the pub to fix a computer an router and it's all got exciting...Unfortunately gb, BMW have thrown in the towel with the x28 now sporting a 2.0 four pot under the bonnet and Volvo going four pot by 2014:
www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8746834/Volvo-announces-a-four-cylinder-future.html
All looking a bit sad really...Capri 3.1RS anyone ?
|
>> I only went to the pub to fix a computer an router and it's all
>> got exciting...
I like your style Gmac, fix 'em in the pub why don't you, better than trying to work around the spiders web of wires and multi connectors here..;)
Will these new smaller engines stand the test of time that the one they replaced have, i really don't know, and none of us will for about another 4/7 years.
I'm looking forward to seeing just how good or not the new Prius Plug In will be in real life use, Hybrids have to be at least part of the answer to recover power and braking losses, so far Toyota's hybrids are showing exceptional durability, certainly when compared to recent Diesel problems.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 27 Feb 12 at 23:01
|
>> Will these new smaller engines stand the test of time that the one they replaced
>> have, i really don't know, and none of us will for about another 4/7 years.
>>
History tells us a NA 2.0 four pot would do 200,000 miles with regular oil and filter changes before requiring open heart surgery. Maybe a 1.6 turbo will be the new NA 2.0 with the same care ??? Humph and other road warriors you owe us this service :-)
Meanwhile, I'll stick to my D5 which since having a new intercooler is now returning 57MPG at an indicated 80MPH, ICE trains and jet engines while waiting for the incomng data,.
Also waiting for feedback from Volvo Germany as to how they expected a dealer fitting a new turbo boost control valve was going to fix a gaping hole in the intercooler was quite going to work.
|
>I only went to the pub to fix a computer an router..
Thanks gmac, I hadn't thought of that one.
These new fangled router-me-bobs tend to hang quite often don't they?
|
...fitting a new turbo boost control valve was going to fix a gaping hole in the intercooler...
I think it's a codes thing, Gmac. The independent who replaced my DMF in 2010 read the codes and prescribed a new boost control valve to correct the ENGINE SERVICE REQUIRED messages. I sought a second opinion from my dealer, who told me it was the intercooler. Since the bottom half of the 'cooler was covered in dried oil, that seemed more likely, so that's what I had done.
No more messages - but no 57mpg either. I was pleased enough with 47; yours is amazing.
|
The VED comments above refer mainly to new car owners.
If you are looking at 6-10 year old cars ... driven usually a lot fewer miles - and often around town - the numbers look very different:
eg say a sub 120gms diesel and a 165gms petrol doing 55 and 40 mpg over say 10k miles:
Diesel costs:
VED £30
Diesel 1,182 £6.5 per gallon
Total running costs (excl servicing)... £1,212
Petro;
VED: £165
Petrol £1,575 £6.3 gallon
Total running costs (excl servicing). £1,740
Diesel saving: £528
Yes, a secondhand diesel may cost £5k versus petrol £3.5k but the difference is recoverable when you sell the car..and £528 a year is a LOT of money for marginal motorists...
|
>> No more messages - but no 57mpg either. I was pleased enough with 47; yours is amazing.
I'm delighted with the car at the moment. Maybe it was a combination of intercooler and boost control valve though I did ask the dealership to address the intercooler issue which they ignored.
I have the advantage of being able to plan my journeys off-peak which will help the fuel economy. No speed up, slow down and repeat.
Last edited by: gmac on Tue 28 Feb 12 at 10:55
|
I got my first diesel car 15 years ago - a Rover 220D. Diesels back then were relatively simple, passably nippy, and cheap to run. None of those factors apply anymore! Power - up, complexity - up, costs - up! I wouldn't bother with one now. I'm actually starting to prefer petrol engines again anyway: smoother, quieter, less NVH, and no "all or nothing" turbo boost/lag.
I just rented a new Renault Grand Scenic which offered a split-second rush of power for about 500 revs, requiring an up change every 2-3 seconds - bah! And no tractability to pull off in second from crawling speed.
I also just had a Hyundai i30 diesel for 3 days - coarse to say the least.
OTOH the Golf TSI petrol I had for a week in the UK last week was a gem of an engine, and achieved close to 50mpg to boot!
|
>> and no "all or nothing" turbo boost/lag.
Not tried a good modern diesel engined car. Not referring to the smaller capacity engines which heavily rely on turbos.
My last two cars I thought very good and flexible. The 170PS diesel in my current car is excellent.
|
>> My last two cars I thought very good and flexible. The 170PS diesel in my
>> current car is excellent.
Ditto the 130PS PD TDI in our Golf, and the 143PS 2.0 common rail in the 318d.
Apart from the odd moment where you want more revs to play with, both engines are incredibly difficult to fault for the road. They respond near instantly to accelerator inputs, provide loads of grunt right where you need it, and have a wide spread of usable power. The PD delivers more at the bottom end of the range, the BMW more at the upper end.
The new small capacity DI turbo petrols look very interesting, and I suspect drive well, but the early indicator for engines like the Ford Ecoboost and Fiat TwinAir is that they simply don't deliver on the economy front.
|
I had the 1.8T VAG engine in both a Golf GTI and Passat 1.8T. The 170PS in the current car is much better. Granted the car is heavier but more powerful and lots more torque. 0-60 is not as quick as the Golf was meant to be but only about 0.5s behind officially.
But in gear put your foot down and it goes very well indeed :-)
|
My small capacity (1400cc) turbo diesel pulls well from 1400rpm and power from there is linear.. It's as quiet inside the car as my son's petrol Yaris...
Some of the disparaging comments are from people who drive.. Renaults :-)
Last edited by: madf on Tue 28 Feb 12 at 17:54
|
|
Ah well - we've just come down from a VAG 1.9tdi to a Fiat 1.2 petrol!
|
>> My small capacity (1400cc) turbo diesel pulls well from 1400rpm and power from there is
>> linear.. It's as quiet inside the car as my son's petrol Yaris...
>>
>> Some of the disparaging comments are from people who drive.. Renaults :-)
>>
You won't find me defending Renault reliability, but their diesel engines are gutsy, quiet and peachy smooth. Jt's one thing they get absolutely spot on, in my experience. I've had plenty of petrol engines that aren't as refined as the F9Q in our old Scenic.
|
Diesel - still a better value proposition? - diddy1234
