Sales of diesel cars have fallen.
Will it make existing diesel cars
[1] more valuable as there will be less supply for avaialble used cars
or
[2] less valuable as people would avoid buying diesel hence lower demand?
|
|
3. Dealers will offer less in trade Ins cos they are diesel but still retail them at current prices
|
4) Wipe out the resale value of a lot of bigger cars as the only viable way of running one affordably gets increasingly "disincentivised" through the tax system.
Will there ever come a time when something big and heavy like an X5 or Audi Q7 will be worth less on the used market as a diesel than a petrol equivalent? I can't see it, personally.
Nobody wants the running costs of big, large engined petrol cars, hence why they have always been absolute bargains on the used market. Unless the Chancellor comes over all benevolent and slashes fuel duty, that isn't going to change any time soon in my view.
Last edited by: DP on Fri 5 Jan 18 at 16:31
|
>>Nobody wants the running costs of big, large engined petrol cars,
I wouldn't say I want them exactly, but that's what I've got. Three cars with a total of about 16litres.
Lots of people like the driving style of a diesel, I don't. But many people do. Equally many prefer the style of a petrol, me for instance. And like everything else about a car, preference frequently comes with a price.
I've never really got on very well with diesels and fuel cost is not, in the grand scheme of things, the most significant cost about them. Certainly not sufficient for me to buy something I don't like.
I'd simply buy older.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 5 Jan 18 at 16:41
|
Most of my customers with big newish 4x4s have either traded them in for petrol versions in the last year or plan to when the time comes.
The reason given is not a taxation or cost issue but that in a coupe of years time they might be hellishly difficult to trade in if dealers start have any trouble shifting them.
Still possible to get excellent deals on a V8 petrol Range Rover too if you can afford the fuel so I'm told, less so the hybrid Rangie which one person I know is keen on.
|
|
This is what I feared and expected. So when I was ready able to lash out a shedload of money on a new car in the later part of last year, it was the 540i I went for, not the 530d.
|
I bought a new diesel in February last year. Its current value doesn't concern me. I bought it to use, not as an investment, and all being well I will keep it for maybe 8 years.
I'd be more worried about a turbo petrol with a DSG. Damn, I've got one of those too...
|
>> I'd be more worried about a turbo petrol with a DSG. Damn, I've got one
>> of those too...
I avoided the DSG as well. On paper the Skoda Superb Diesel Estate DSG should have been top of the pile for my needs.
|
>> Nobody wants the running costs of big, large engined petrol cars, hence why they have
>> always been absolute bargains on the used market. Unless the Chancellor comes over all benevolent and slashes fuel duty, that isn't going to change any time soon in my view.
>>
That's less of an issue when you can enjoy 300 + bhp and well over 30mpg, hence largish petrol cars such as Zeros will not drop massively in value compared to the equivalent diesel. In fact seven/eight ish year old 330i/530is etc are holding up very well because they are smooth, refined, quick AND pretty economical compared with a similar car only five years or so older.
The choice today as a private buyer is buy a diesel and maybe see the value drop through the floor, plus enjoy higher servicing costs, or buy a petrol and be fairly secure in projected residuals - and enjoy strong performance without mpg figures in the teens as it would have been 15 years ago.
I know what I would do, er did ... and would do again.
|
I seem to recall that the PPoS does about 16mpg. I think the diesel version is something like 24mpg.
Like I said, not enough to buy something I don't want when if I am bothered the cost issue it can be solved by simply buying one 12 months older.
|
I'm in same place Zero was a few months ago with an inheritance burning a hole in my pocket.
I've no interest in performance car route Z has taken but if a bigger caravan beckoned it's be beyond the Berlingo's capacity. Expressed some interest in a Subaru Forester but it'd have to be diesel to combine grunt with fuel efficiency.
Think I'll look at short term fixed rate investments while the market sorts itself out.....
|
"Think I'll look at short term fixed rate investments"
Around zero or about -3% allowing for inflation.
|
yup
hence my "spend it" strategy
|
>> Around zero or about -3% allowing for inflation.
Better than buying a car now with usual depreciation off forecourt AND risk of further plumets in value when diesels are legislated off the road.
|
Spending significant sums of money on a car is usually a crap financial decision even if you buy the ideal car for your needs which you also love.
Buying the "wrong" car for your desires or needs just makes what was financially unwise become completely ridiculous.
Absolutely take your time and be sure. If you don't see a car which grabs you, then the money is undoubtedly better unspent.
|
>> I know what I would do, er did ... and would do again.
I did it too :-)
There will always be individual exceptions, but as a rule, big engined petrol cars are very cheap to buy secondhand compared with diesel equivalents, and have been for some time
|
I know there is talk of diesel being phased out etc but until it does, unless you have came into a inheritance, there is still a financial based decision to be made for those that do fair mileages.
I have now had my Civic for 2 years, it was 6 months old when I got it. I pay zero road tax. I get a spreadsheet-calculated average of 62.4 mpg. I can take 4 people down to my brothers in Bishop Stortford for around £30 or so each way.
Unless you are going for a small car, the petrol economies just aren't at the level that it would make financial sense. Yes I know the argument about dearer upfront but if the used diesel prices are going to drop, presumably to near or less than their petrol equivalent, then its a thought to buy the used diesel?
On a side note, my Civic came with free servicing so other than the set of winter tyres I bought voluntarily off Gumtree, I have not paid a single penny on any maintenance / servicing over the two years. Must be up there with my old Saxo diesel as one of the cheapest cars to run. (I used to put the Saxo in to a National tyre place every 6 months for an oil and filter change and that was the only preventative maintenance I did.
|
|
The other point to consider is that some people (including me) prefer how diesels drive. The low down slug of torque, no need to rev the nuts off, etc. I have been reminded of this driving a hired Ford Focus Estate around Poland and the Czech Republic for the last week. It is a 1.6 petrol and even though it is fully loaded with 5 + luggage, it is desperately slow on the motorway! I am sure a Focus TDCI would drive better, as well as being more economical. So I would chose diesel even more if the second hand price was lower! (It would be no less uncomfortable, but that's a story for another thread!)
Last edited by: Boxsterboy on Sun 7 Jan 18 at 17:36
|
>> The other point to consider is that some people (including me) prefer how diesels drive.
>> The low down slug of torque, no need to rev the nuts off, etc.
Nope, not valid. The beemer has torque characteristics of a diesel, coming in at very low revs, its just as flat, and as much as a diesel, plus it does not drop off a cliff at 4k revs.
Many blown and unblown small 3cyl petrols are also just as flexible
What you dont get is the diesel noise and vibration. Even the best have too much
This "diesel is nicer to drive" is vol au vents.
|
>>
>> Nope, not valid. The beemer has torque characteristics of a diesel, coming in at very
>> low revs, its just as flat, and as much as a diesel, plus it does
>> not drop off a cliff at 4k revs.
On the X1 (with the 4-cyl petrol equivalent of your engine), though you don't, of course, get the same maximum torque figure as the same capacity diesel, (280Nm vs 400 Nm), that maximum torque is delivered at 1250rpm in the petrol, vs 1750rpm for the diesel.
Not sure about the overall torque curves for each engine, I might go looking for them.
Anyway, I've habitually driven diesel cars (company cars for BIK, and then personal cars because I like the characteristics referred to).
This is the first petrol car I've had for some time (though SWMBO's have been); I've driven the X1 in both petrol and diesel 2 litre versions, and the petrol is (IMO) a rather better overall experience.
|
>> On the X1 (with the 4-cyl petrol equivalent of your engine), though you don't, of
>> course, get the same maximum torque figure as the same capacity diesel, (280Nm vs 400
>> Nm), that maximum torque is delivered at 1250rpm in the petrol, vs 1750rpm for the
>> diesel.
>>
The version of that engine in the 330i is 350nm and 252bhp.
|
>> Nope, not valid. The beemer has torque characteristics of a diesel, coming in at very
>> low revs, its just as flat, and as much as a diesel, plus it does
>> not drop off a cliff at 4k revs.
>>
Yes but I was comparing a Focus with a Focus, not a BMW costing twice as much, and in the case of the Focus the diesel is a better drive. I have no clue about the BMW as I would never dream of 'investing' that much money in a car!
(btw Mrs BB has a 1 yesr old 2.0 petrol BMW, so I have driven a petrol BMW!)
|
As I posted previously, I had a 3 cyl Focus petrol estate in Spain earlier this year. 4 adults, lots of baggage so fully laden. Think it was only 1 litre with 125 horses... no idea of torque, but it cruised effortlessly at 130kph, and a bit/lot, although I had to change down a gear on uphill sections of Autopista.
So much nicer to drive than my diesel Focus, which admittedly was 2011 ( I think..) and higher miles, although the Petrol renter had less than 1k kilometres on the clock and was soundly thrashed by yours truly.
Pretty economical too given how I drove it on the AP7 and in the mountains.
|
|
I think many knock modern small capacity petrol engines without actually experiencing them.
|
Thats interesting - my cars have been diesel since my M reg Citroen ZX.
Wife now has a 1.2 turbo petrol Beetle and I struggle to get the revs right when setting off from stationary. Always seem to rev it too high initially. Dont know if its me or a characteristic of this engine.
|
>> Thats interesting - my cars have been diesel since my M reg Citroen ZX.
>>
>> Wife now has a 1.2 turbo petrol Beetle and I struggle to get the revs
>> right when setting off from stationary. Always seem to rev it too high initially. Dont
>> know if its me or a characteristic of this engine.
So she can drive and you cant?
|
I've driven plenty of turbo-petrol cars and never had any problem pulling away etc.
Except for a Suzuki S-cross loaner I had when the Kizashi was being serviced - I think it had a 1-litre turbo job but was a pain to drive smoothly as it enjoyed surging more than throttle inputs would suggest.
Only other car I found to have an odd throttle map (I presume) was a C2 VTS I bought for the missus when she was expecting our 1st child - every time I drove it 'spiritiedly', on changing up from 3rd to 4th it would overrev when I'd dipped the clutch despite having eased off the throttle as I would normally - more of a pita than you would imagine.
|
Another of the reasons for diesel's decline is that the small petrol turbo that Rob is talking about can beat a diesel for economy as well as for reflinement, and its torque is all that you need.
SWMBO's Audi A1 (1.4, 125 bhp) will do 45 mpg in town and 55 on a long run: my diesel V60 can only manage 40 and 50 respectively. I think that the V60 will need to go sooner rather than later. As people have said above, the bottom probably won't drop out of the diesel market jusy yet, but there's always a chance; and also the Volvo's stodgy steering and handling have been shown up by the A1.
|
Surely comparing apples and oranges there?
What is the economy for the A1 diesel?
|
Even if you disregard the emissions hoo-ha, I think it's fair to say that small turbocharged petrol engines have been encroaching into diesel territory for some time now.
You can have the lazy torque characteristics of a diesel engine, with greater refinement compensating for the small loss of real world economy. And none of the DPF nonsense to worry about (yet!), and the resulting demands on driving patterns it imposes.
One of my absolute favourite mass produced engines at the moment is the little Ford 1.0 Ecoboost. Whether in 100, 125 or 140PS tune, it's seriously impressive. A flat torque curve from 1500 RPM, a real world 45 mpg in a Fiesta, and makes a great noise. All from an engine that will sit on a sheet of A4 paper, and weighs just 97kg.
I know of two (a 100 and a 140) that both replaced diesels of similar size, and they are slightly less efficient overall, but not by the margin you might expect. They both give low 40s averages, vs the high 40s of the diesels. You still get the punchy bottom end and midrange, but with lower NVH levels, and without the DPF and all the usage restrictions that imposes.
I also suspect that Euro 6 has made quite a dent in diesel efficiency. We have a Mini Cooper Clubman D with the 150 PS BMW N47 2.0 diesel in it. It performs really well, but the fuel economy is disappointing compared with the Euro 5 320d that I had, despite being in a lower state of tune, and in a car nearly 200kg lighter. It's about 10 mpg thirstier in like-for-like use.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 8 Jan 18 at 09:29
|
10-15 years ago
Diesel - torque, reliability + huge mileages, economy
Petrol - cheaper to buy, low torque, lower mpg, engine life shorter
Today
Diesel - torque, reliability as mileage rises???, economy, expensive repairs after 60K?
emissions, adblue/ DPF issues............ Bad press for multiuple cheating emissions tests
Petrol - cheaper to buy, torque of turbo, mpg improving, engine life?(some issues with
certain smaller 3 cyl engines, bigger ones better)
Decline in car sales - poorer ££ exchange rate, new models much more expensive than old model even for UKbuilt cars.....
|
The 1.0 Ecoboost (in a Focus) did well in the Autobild 100k (km) endurance test and teardown, a lot better than the 2.0 TDCi, it would seem:
www.autobild.de/bilder/die-neue-dauertest-rangliste-ab-2014--5130184.html#bild1
I love this test, and well worth the hassle of translating from German. As well as logging any reliability issues, they also strip the car down to its last nut and bolt after 100,000 km and check for wear and tear.
Some shocking results. Rust and fundamental mechanical failures seem worryingly common, a Subaru comes flat last, and the VW Golf, Audi Q3 and BMW Active Tourer do particularly badly. Also mention of things not being covered by the KIA warranty, which I've heard from a few owners as well.
Good info though.
|
|
My brother drives the 1.0 Ecoboost Ford Focus.No problems he is happy with the car.German article good and interesting.
|
Something self and Mrs F have been discussing recently. She has 5 more years to do before retirement if she chooses to go on that long and at the moment the plan is she will so we've been casually talking of our car needs once a work commute is out of the equation.
She had a far bigger budget than she spent on the CLK diesel purchase earlier this year but decided it was worth buying a vehicle that would last that pre-retirement period whereby its cost would allow us to regard it as without value at the end so no disappointment if diesel values have collapsed at that time. As far as we are concerned the benchmark for having a vehicle (excluding fuel, insurance, servicing etc) is a monthly cost of £200 which would lease something acceptable like a V40. If we better that then it's all good and in the case of the CLK its purchase costs plus say the (unlikely but possible) disaster of a new autobox and turbo will still keep it under budget over 5yrs.
We reckon at her retirement time we'll keep to a large diesel estate for whoever wants to do the miles or carry loads of stuff... and a used smaller elec car for local runs.
It will be interesting to see where the values of elec cars are at that time and what sort of thing is on the market. As with so many who discuss it on here range will be crucial... less than 200mls in any weather/conditions will be unacceptable for our rural life.
If fuel consumption is a crucial factor then I see a lot of support here for the tiny petrol engines like the Ecoboost in a Fiesta. As someone above said it's not fair to compare apples and oranges... currently in the real world a 5-series diesel auto estate would easily match and often far improve on the fuel use of an ecoboost Fiesta... know which I'd choose.
|
My indie mechanic had warned me off the ecoboost Ford engines initially - I wonder if they have improved any.
If I remember rightly it was something to do with the oil and what it was being used for.
|
Your indie was right, they have been notorious IIRC for engine failure at lowish mileage owing to the failure of something called a 'degas' pipe and the consequent sudden loss of all the coolant.
The question is whether the problem has now been solved.
|
|
Somewhere on here is a thread I started when the focus hire car I had with that engine broke, and the man from Avis said he’d seen loads with the same problem. Having said that, the internet is not full of similar stories so I assume it is fixed? It’d still put me off buying a Ford with the same engine though.
|
>> Somewhere on here is a thread I started when the focus hire car I had
>> with that engine broke
This one? www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=18230
|
>>
>> This one? www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=18230
>>
Yes, that’s the one! :)
|
There was an issue with a plastic coolant pipe splitting on early engines which was subject to a recall, and has been resolved with a modified part. The loss of coolant was quickly resulting in engine damage, but I'm sure the same would apply to any modern engine. My M140i runs at 108°C in normal conditions, so I doubt that would cope well with any cooling system leak or depressurising event either.
In my in-laws Fiesta, I'm far more concerned about the PowerShift DCT than the engine. These really do have some horror stories attached to them.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 8 Jan 18 at 12:45
|
>>I'm far more concerned about the PowerShift DCT than the engine.
Double danger, compounding the fellony.........drinking in the last chance saloon.
A son bought an early Golf GTi auto DSG - traded it in for a new car but manual. under 3 year old the dealer traded it - it sat on the forecourt of a Montrose independent dealer for over a year
|
>> A son bought an early Golf GTi auto DSG - traded it in for a
>> new car but manual. under 3 year old the dealer traded it - it sat
>> on the forecourt of a Montrose independent dealer for over a year
I wouldn't personally want a DSG purely based on my experience of them at a former employer where a number of colleagues had them in Passats and CCs. The proportion that suffered intermittent, niggling faults was way too high for my liking, and perhaps more worrying was the fact that diagnosis and repair of these faults seemed to be beyond the capabilities of the dealer network. "Computer says its OK, mate. No fault found"
|
>>In my in-laws Fiesta, I'm far more concerned about the PowerShift DCT than the engine
The boss likes automatics. Her current car (2014 Roomster) has a 1.2TSI engine and a DSG. I am not expecting it to be as fault free over 12 years as her last car, a 2002 Civic. We should have kept that, I sold it to a friend for £1,000 and it is still going strong.
If she wants to change, I will be nominating a Mazda 2. 1.5 petrol, NA, and TC-equipped planetary gearbox.
>>I also suspect that Euro 6 has made quite a dent in diesel efficiency.
I'm optimistic about the reliability of my Outlander Euro6 diesel. Its manual Euro5 predecessor was no trouble over 6 years/50,000 but it was a poor drive with a manual box and less economical. Dropping the peak power of the 4N14 diesel from 177 to 150ps has not hurt it at all (as well as being more economical even with the TC auto, it actually has a better torque curve in the mid range). Despite rubbish reviews, it's a very easy car to live with.
All being well I'll keep that for as long as I need a practical car, so value doesn't really concern me, but if I were replacing it now I'd probably look harder at petrol auto alternatives - I couldn't find any I liked as much a year ago.
|
My similar Outlander diesel auto has just passed 3 years and 26,000 miles, so not a huge annual mileage, with plenty of short town runs. Yet, as yet, no reason to think we won't get the 10 years / 100,000 miles use out of it that we plan to.
Struggles to crack 40 mpg, but in view of its usage regime that's probably acceptable.
Only additional cost to date is 4 new tyres - the front pair in November and the back pair next week. Well-worn Toyos. Probably the crappy NZ roads play a part...
|
from that link, Aston University predicts they will account for just 15% of the UK market by 2025, down from a 50% peak.
Assuming this trend continues, is it a good time to buy used diesels cars in near future?
Can we expect a hefty discount on diesels? :p
|
Who knows. Short term there will be a glut of diesels, but in 2/3 years when today's new cars hit the used market there could be a relative shortage. Used car buyers look hard at fuel economy.
Also, when it sinks in that newer diesel and petrol cars are very similar in terms of emissions (including for particulates) the disapprobation will be more evenly spread across all hydrocarbon burners. The relative issue is really about the diesel cars produced up to 2015.
|
>> Who knows. Short term there will be a glut of diesels, but in 2/3 years
>> when today's new cars hit the used market there could be a relative shortage. Used
>> car buyers look hard at fuel economy.
>>
Though Euro6 diesels are very complex which could deter used buyers, and if these systems break down they could have trouble passing MOT tests.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 11:21
|
The comments about DSG etc are irrelevant, the issue is the viability of diesel motoring.
Of course it makes sense for high mileage company drivers as BiK is generally still favourable, likewise high mileage private drivers who can get a favourable lease deal and will benefit from the economy of a diesel.
In both cases someone else is taking the risk re the residuals.
Though for the private buyer there is a strong risk re diesel residuals so petrol is making ever more sense. Alongside this small turbo petrols offer most of the flexibility or a diesel. most of the economy of a diesel though with much better refinement.
Of course cars such the 6cyl BMW diesels don't require much of a sacrifice in refinement terms and still offer a benefit in economy relative to performance though gone are the days that a powerful 6cyl petrol car meant sub 20mpg around town and 25mpg at best.
I had an '07 Focus ST which was 224g/km CO2 and could average 30mpg on a run if driven gently, then a 123d which was in the same realm in performance terms (if not quite as quick) at 135g/km and would average 45mpg minimum, perhaps 48-50mpg on a run; and now the M135i that is around 100 bhp more than the Focus, a different order of magnitude in performance terms than either the ST or the 123d yet is 175g/km and easily achieves 37 ish mpg on a run.
So while a performance diesel still offers an economy advantage it is quite possible today to enjoy a powerful, flexible and refined petrol engine without having to take out a mortgage to cover the fuel costs.
Or to put it another way, at the mileage I do these days (8k ish p/a) the small difference in fuel costs (about £350-£400 p/a versus say, a 335d) is minimal compared to the potential drop in diesel residuals.
|
>> a 123d which was in the same realm in performance terms (if not quite as quick) at 135g/km
>> and would average 45mpg minimum, perhaps 48-50mpg on a run; and now the M135i that
>> is around 100 bhp more than the Focus, a different order of magnitude in performance terms
>> than either the ST or the 123d yet is 175g/km and easily achieves 37 ish mpg on a run.
But using your figures, the M-Lite's most economical usage pattern is still 8 mpg adrift of the 123d's minimum average. You're comparing apples with pears. If you look at averages for both cars, you're looking at (probably slightly sub) 30 mpg vs 45, so the diesel travels 50% further on every gallon. That's significant for a lot of people.
>> Or to put it another way, at the mileage I do these days (8k ish
>> p/a) the small difference in fuel costs (about £350-£400 p/a versus say, a 335d) is
>> minimal compared to the potential drop in diesel residuals.
But if you were doing 20k or 30k.....
Diesels have never made financial sense for people doing 8,000 miles a year, even without the potential hit in residuals being debated here.
Last edited by: DP on Tue 9 Jan 18 at 18:58
|
Some times when I have 5 minutes I browse the main dealer site for my next car to replace my 12 yr old Golf... found my ideal car (4mth old Golf GTD), has everything I would spec if bought new, it's been up for 28K since Christmas, today I had another look and it's dropped 2K!
With my my trade-in and bit off from the dealer I could get it for under 24K, this is a car that is 4 months old and with the spec it's in would have been at least 36K new.
If only... unfortunately finances mean I'll have to wait 3yrs until mortgage finishes or someone gives me the money!
|
>> You're comparing apples with pears. >>
No, to put it another way 10+ years ago a quick petrol car was horribly thirsty where as today they are acceptably economical for daily use.
>> >> Or to put it another way, at the mileage I do these days (8k
>> ish p/a) the small difference in fuel costs (about £350-£400 p/a versus say, a 335d)
>> is minimal compared to the potential drop in diesel residuals.
>>
>> But if you were doing 20k or 30k.....
>>
But I'm not.
>> Diesels have never made financial sense for people doing 8,000 miles a year, even without
>> the potential hit in residuals being debated here.
>>
It depends, I may well have bought a 330d or 335d Touring if it wasn't for diesel residual concerns.
|
>> No, to put it another way 10+ years ago a quick petrol car was horribly
>> thirsty where as today they are acceptably economical for daily use.
I know where you are coming from, but you need to look beyond your own circumstances and perspective. Define acceptable. I know people who don't think the 28.something I get is anywhere near acceptable. I've known people who are disappointed with a car that won't crack 50 mpg. I know someone who drives an AMG G63 and couldn't tell you if it does 12 mpg or 18, because he is well off, does 5,000 miles a year, and couldn't care less.
>>
>> >> But if you were doing 20k or 30k.....
>> >>
>>
>> But I'm not.
That's great for you, but many are doing 20-30k+ , and this is a discussion about the prospects for the wider market for diesel cars. Again, this comes down to perspective. Currently, a diesel is still the best option for a huge number of users out there because of roughly 50% better economy (ballpark based on your 123d vs M135i averages). Much as love my M140i, no way would I have it if I had to do 20+k a year out of my own pocket in it. I'd have a diesel, just like most of the others in the same circumstances.
Any punitive taxation of diesel fuel or vehicles risks some pretty nasty effects on the wider economy, because diesel is so entrenched in our transport system, both private and commercial. The government will be treading carefully, if it has any sense at all.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 09:38
|
>> I know where you are coming from, but you need to look beyond your own
>> circumstances and perspective. Define acceptable. I know people who don't think the 28.something I get
>> is anywhere near acceptable.
The G31 has settled at 28MPG, on 3.5k miles of mixed motoring. Its a world away from the advertised specs and by todays standards is a long way from acceptable. At 3litres its not that big, so should do better.
However big fast car comes with big fast bills, which is why I never got one until I could afford to run it. Its very diesel-esque in its power delivery, over a wider range, and more of it, you just have to accept you are going to have to pay more for it.
Until that is HM Gov starts to punish derv drivers. Which is not that far away I fear
|
They are more likely to load the purchase costs than the fuel duty.
The people who have already bought diesels did so under the rules and standards obtaining at the time, to punish them would be unfair and electoral self-harm.
|
>> They are more likely to load the purchase costs than the fuel duty.
>>
>> The people who have already bought diesels did so under the rules and standards obtaining
>> at the time, to punish them would be unfair and electoral self-harm.
"Unfair" has never been a consideration in the past.
Hm Gov statement " Fuel duties were based in good faith on the environmental data provided by the manufacturers. They lied, blame them"
Be in no doubt, VAG are responsible for the diesel "crisis" .
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 10:21
|
>> The G31 has settled at 28MPG, on 3.5k miles of mixed motoring. Its a world
>> away from the advertised specs and by todays standards is a long way from acceptable.
>> At 3litres its not that big, so should do better.
>>
What large luxurious 300 + bhp petrol estate car would better that? Yes a 530d would better that and would still be stonkingly quick by most standards though if diesel residuals fall a 530d could easily lose £5k more than the 540i over night.
I remember looking at nearly new 3-Series Touring prices a year or so ago and even then 330i and 335is were going for more than 330d and 335ds.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 10:34
|
>>
>> I remember looking at nearly new 3-Series Touring prices a year or so ago and
>> even then 330i and 335is were going for more than 330d and 335ds.
>>
It's very hard to compare like for like as the specs on these cars vary wildly with options, but sticking with M-Sport Tourings, the 335d does seem to still carry a slight premium over the 330d and 340i which themselves are priced similarly to each other. Low mileage 2017 330d or 340i M-Sport Tourings start from just under £30k, with 335d M-Sport Tourings starting at £31.3k
What is interesting is that there are just 10 2017 3 litre petrols for sale nationwide vs 90 2017 3 litre diesels.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 11 Jan 18 at 15:51
|
Looking at used approved BMWs up to two years and 20k miles, the 330i and 340i are at a slight premium over the 330d and 335d and you need to bear in mind that the 330i is a smaller engine than the other three and many of the 330ds and all of the 335ds are X-Drive.
I know, I know they're diesel though there are some very nice 335ds ....
|
I didn't look at the 330i. As you say, they are a smaller engine. The point is, there isn't much difference though. If there is an implosion of diesel residuals, it's not affecting BMW, yet, and they have the most advanced petrol engines with the smallest efficiency gap to the diesels.
On that note, I've just recorded 42.9 mpg on the M140i trip computer on the 91 mile door-to-door run to our Bristol office. Ridiculously impressive for a 3.0 turbo petrol engine.
|
>> I didn't look at the 330i. As you say, they are a smaller engine. >>
I think the point of note is that the 2.0 4cyl 252bhp RWD petrol 330i is going for the same kind of price at a year or so old as the 3.0 6cyl 313bhp X-Drive diesel 335d which must have been £5k or so more when new.
>> On that note, I've just recorded 42.9 mpg on the M140i trip computer on the 91 mile door-to-door run to our Bristol office.>>
Agreed, very impressive! Was that in eco-pro?
I don't think I have quite seen that kind of economy with the M135i though then again I haven't really tried.
|
>> Agreed, very impressive! Was that in eco-pro?
>>
>> I don't think I have quite seen that kind of economy with the M135i though
>> then again I haven't really tried.
I used Comfort mode for the 13 or so miles to the M4, then Eco Pro as soon as I joined the motorway, and for the rest of the trip. Our office is only a few minutes off the M5, which is handy as I find Eco Pro's impact on throttle response far too severe to use unless at a steady cruise. On the motorway however, you don't really notice it, apart from the transmission disengaging drive when you lift, and the revs dropping to idle. Very odd sensation.
This journey was in near perfect traffic conditions and with a significant amount of gentle-ish motorway mileage. I don't think I could realistically get any more out of it without driving unrealistically slowly. I was at or within 5 mph of the legal limit all the way down the motorway.
The indicator said I'd gained 11 miles of range for using Eco Pro by the time I got home. I have no idea how this is measured or proven.
|
>> What large luxurious 300 + bhp petrol estate car would better that? Yes a 530d
>> would better that and would still be stonkingly quick by most standards though if diesel
>> residuals fall a 530d could easily lose £5k more than the 540i over night.
Very impressive. I have the same engine in a smaller, 300kg lighter car with 2 fewer driven wheels, and it's not beating that by anything significant.
Cracking bit of kit you have there, Z.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 13 Jan 18 at 21:06
|
>> Very impressive. I have the same engine in a smaller, 300kg lighter car with 2
>> fewer driven wheels, and it's not beating that by anything significant.
>>
>> Cracking bit of kit you have there, Z.
And its got 44kg of dog and cage in the back invariably. I think the G31 is a better rider than the G30, with the self leveling air suspension up aft. You can see where the money has gone, its a deeply impressive technical feat to make a large car, this comfortable, fast and chuckable.
Ok it has some issues and foibles, but as a practical package for my needs it offers me more fun than I could have hoped for.
|
>> The G31 has settled at 28MPG, on 3.5k miles of mixed motoring. Its a world
>> away from the advertised specs and by todays standards is a long way from acceptable.
>> At 3litres its not that big, so should do better.
>>
>> However big fast car comes with big fast bills, which is why I never got
>> one until I could afford to run it. Its very diesel-esque in its power delivery,
>> over a wider range, and more of it, you just have to accept you are
>> going to have to pay more for it.
>>
I had an E61 535d Touring in 2005, which averaged 28.2mpg over 12 months and 20odd thousand miles. I haven’t had an F11 535d touring, but colleagues that have claim low to mid 30s to the gallon. So say 33mpg. 15% worse fuel consumption for a 540i (given petrol is probably 5% cheaper...) seems a small price to pay for the performance, with no other downside?
And this probably won’t help, but my 235i has consistently recorded 27.5mpg from 1,000 miles to its current 19,000 miles...
|
>> I know where you are coming from, but you need to look beyond your own circumstances >>
But it's all about "own circumstances" DP, that's how we choose, and today you can get stonking performance and refinement and 30mpg, whereas not so long ago any where near the same performance would have meant sub 20mpg. So for many who do even 20-30k p/a 30mpg is a price worth paying for the driving experience whereas 15-18mpg would not have been.
That and the fact that 30mpg over 30k miles costs around £2000 more than 50mpg, a sum that could be swallowed in no time if diesel residuals drop through the floor, of course it is still an "if".
|
My estimation is that towards end of 2019 or in 2020, the diesel cars' values will plummet.
By this time there will be huge supply of diesel cars via end of PCP deals and reduced demand of new diesels.
Small diesel cars will lose their advantage entirely against fuel economic petrol models (as mentioned in this thread already).
Whether executive/SUVs petrols can surface will depend on whether manufactuers are able to produce them. At present, diesel still wins on this segment simply because there is not much choice of petrols in this segment.
If this area remains a void, then diesel cars in this segment would still fare well. Otherwise future of diesel passenger cars will be doomed.
So IMHO, if anyone is buying nearly/new diesel cars right now:
Small diesel cars will sell for scrap values in future
SUVs will still hold their values depending heavily on new petrol SUVs coming out
|
|
I reckon older diesels, or rather current diesels whem they are older, might find it difficult to pass the emmisions element of the MOT test.
|
Just wait for the London ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) planned to start in around 2019/2020.
www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-plans-to-introduce-ulez-in-april-2019
I'm stuffed. Probably sell the car somewhere away from London and just get the (very polluting old diesel) bus.
|
>> I'm stuffed. Probably sell the car somewhere away from London and just get the (very
>> polluting old diesel) bus.
>>
Most London Buses, certainly in the centre, are not old diesel ones and even less will be around by 2020.
I expect lorries to be more of an issue given the volume of building work around the centre of London
Something had to be done and there is really no reason for most people to take a can into the centre of London, especially during the working day.
|
>> I reckon older diesels, or rather current diesels whem they are older, might find it
>> difficult to pass the emmisions element of the MOT test.
>>
No reason why they should, emissions tests in the MOT are different for different ages of vehicle For example a Euro 4 vehicle, petrol or diesel, will only ever be required to meet Euro 4 requirements.
Any emissions failure will be down to lack of maintenance etc rather than the age of vehicle or type of fuel.
|
|
I think it will nothing less then Euro 6 in the London zone.
|
>> No reason why they should, emissions tests in the MOT are different for different ages of rvehicle or type of fuel.
>>
Euro6 is very tough so will, say, 100k mile E6 cars be able to pass the test ...
|
>> Euro6 is very tough so will, say, 100k mile E6 cars be able to pass
>> the test ...
>>
If the owner has kept it maintained properly, no reason why not.
Cost of replacement parts (DPF / Catalysts) etc could cause old cars to be scrapped rather than the money spent to keep it maintained.
|
You might say " Something had to be done and there is really no reason for most people to take a car into the centre of London, especially during the working day. "
But heck, I don't live nor drive anywhere near the centre - I live 5 miles from the pillar at Charing Cross and it'll cost me £12.50 to go 2 miles (in a direction away from London) to Sainsbury's. I'll have to park my car off road too, otherwise I'd risk a £12.50 per day charge if spotted.
|
The size of the proposed zone is very large, I suspect it may be smaller when implemented. It was not cheap to set up charging for the current congestion charge zone with cameras etc to monitor those entering and leaving, to do that round the north and south circular will not be cheap.
You also have some ludicrous situations such as the IKEA at Wembley. Coming from the west you go in from the north circular, leaving the store, to get to the north circular westbound you have to cross the north circular via the one away system so you would be, technically inside the north circular for about 2 minutes, will everybody doing that be charged?
|
Watching a program about car emissions and the damage to small children.
The school children gave a sample of saliva and various test where done.The results where not very good.Every street or town you go into we are surrounded by what the Dutch call the golden cow.Things have to change but it won't be easy myself included.
|
Resale value of diesel cars - Bobby
