Can the japs realy produce a refined diesel
Put it like this - my 2.2 D4-D 150 Avensis is hugely more refined than my previous petrol car. Ok, that was a Mondeo and Ford's are hardly renowned for smoothness, but the current Avensis diesel range are incredibly refined. This engine (and the T180) really has a petrol-like smoothness and eagerness to rev (albeit not to such a high number of revs obviously).
|
"Can the Japs really produce a refined diesel?"
My Yaris is certainly refined: better than VAG or Ford anyday.
madf
|
My mate works at Toyota HQ in Epsom and so has their lease cars every six months. I think he has been through the whole range now. He was raving about the 175 Avensis diesel over Christmas, saying how he thought it was the best of their models. I personally find the shape a bit bland, but my brief drive in a 2.0 Avensis diesel showed it to be quite refined.
I also get to hear of the problems that afflict Toyotas as much as any car. Like the Lexus GS with the mysterious creaking from around the windscreen. Their top engineers couldn't find out what the cause was until they stripped the whole car down and found cracks in the metal between the spot welds.
|
>>Put it like this - my 2.2 D4-D 150 Avensis is hugely more refined than my previous petrol car. Ok, that was a Mondeo and Ford's are hardly renowned for smoothness, >>
Not sure what age / engine you petrol Mondeo was though the MkI/IIs were not as crisp and free revving as say a Vauxhall Ecotec of the same capacity or a Honda V-Tec, the V6 being the exception nor was the 1.8TD very refined (though the same engine was a revelation with CR injection in the Focus). The MkIII 1.8 and 2.0 are fine, the former being a bit lacking in torque.
|
For me it is a matter of expectations.
I was mildly disappointed with the D-Cat 175 because I expected that it would have moved the game on, that five years of diesel development would have born fruit, that the Piezzo injection would provide a benefit noticable benefit when driving etc. I guess I expected that it would at least be much more punchy, much more refined or much more free revving (cant comment on MPG) or perhaps even exhibit a combination of those attributes compared to the 5 year old TDCi design. However it doesnt so it simply did not meet my expectations.
That being said it is impressively punchy above 2000 rpm, refined and free revving and would certainly be on my list as and when I decide to get a new car.
|
|
|
Not sure what age / engine you petrol Mondeo was though the MkI/IIs were not as crisp and free revving as say a Vauxhall Ecotec of the same capacity or a Honda V-Tec, the V6 being the exception nor was the 1.8TD very refined (though the same engine was a revelation with CR injection in the Focus). The MkIII 1.8 and 2.0 are fine, the former being a bit lacking in torque.
It was a Mk II 1.8 petrol. Was a superb car generally, but the engine was a bag of nails compared with anything Japanese that I have driven. I would strongly recommend a Mondeo to anyone, they make a fine purchase, but almost 20 years of motoring has shown me that japanese engines generally have it sewn up when it comes to refinement and smoothness. My Mondeo's petrol engine was not even in the same league as the diesel Avensis (or the Accord that I also tested).
|
I would be interested in any experience BRers have of realistic fuel consumption figures from Avensis diesels. I now have a 55 mile commute which may make a change economically viable depending on the numbers.
Thanks, MGs
|
I would be interested in any experience BRers have of realistic fuel consumption figures from Avensis diesels. I now have a 55 mile commute which may make a change economically viable depending on the numbers. Thanks, MGs
Hi MGs,
Over 7500 miles since new my D4-D 150 has averaged 50.3mpg (calculated, not based on the trip computer). The first 3000 miles were actually covered at close to 53mpg, but it has dropped off slightly. I put this down to the winter months meaning much more of my commute being covered when the engine is on the warm-up cycle. Worst I have seen from a tankful is 45.4, best 57.2. I do a 30 mile each way daily commute, 22 of which are on the motorway. If your commute is 55 miles each way then I would think you could easily better the figures I have quoted.
Rich
|
Hi Rich,
That is most interesting, thank you very much indeed. I am very pleasantly suprised at that. My current somewhat elderly diesel Mercedes E class is a lovely car but struggles to make 40, although excellent for the size of car and an auto as well. Much of my journey is fast dual carriageway and motorway so i think it very likely that those figures could be improved upon. I must do my sums - depreciation v extra mpg and MB prestige and comfort v japanese reliability.
Cheers, MGs
|
|
MGS, Why not combine economy, reliability and low depreciation and have an Audi?
|
MGS, Why not combine economy, reliability and low depreciation and have an Audi?
No 4cyl Audi diesel is as refined as the D-Cat Toyota.
|
MY C class diesel used to get 43-45mpg but was blowing a lot of smoke on start up.
Tried Redex fuel treatment in a few tanks and the smoke disppeared, ran quieter + the MPG improved by 2-3mpg as well. Same commuting @ same time of day.............. That was £5-£6 well spent.
Maybe a drop of Redex could for your E-class.
|
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the input. I will definitely try the Redex treatment. I remember using it to decoke morris minors and the like in the 1970s. Run it at full bore and squirt redex in until it chokes out, leave overnight, change the plugs and disappear in a cloud of smoke for several miles. Not sure if it actually did anything but I felt better. Actually an Audi is always a consideration. I had excellent service over 80k+ miles from an A6 tdi that never did less than 45mpg. Dont like the idea of cambelt replacements every 40k now involving taking the front end of the car off, but I do agree they are very nice vehicles. I will probably run the Merc for a while yet and change in plenty of time before the auto box might go. My change in job has caused a modest re-think in car policy but no pressing need for action just yet. As a wildcard I did think of a Kia Rio diesel with the long manufacturers guarantee and 60mpg together with a good write up by HJ, and was interested to see a recent thread on the subject, but I think I'l just keep mulling that one over. Off to Halfords for the redex...
Cheers, MGs
|
|
Unless they've changed their policy in the last 6 months, the recommended cambelt replacement mileage on Audi Tdis is definitely 80k.
|
Hi Martin,
Yes indeed, I do recollect that was the case. However there was a lot of discussion on here about VW group changing the recommendation to 40k, I rather assumed that would also apply to Audi as well. I am clearly no expert on this and remain somewhat confused as to the current state of play. However I understand that Toyotas are chain driven, like my Merc which has a comfortingly large duplex chain visible via the oil filler.
Cheers, MGs
|
However there was a lot of discussion on here about VW group changing the recommendation to 40k, I rather assumed that would also apply to Audi as well.
According to the following post, it does include Audi.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=37741&...e
|
|
When that discussion was going on I asked our fleet manager about it and he was categoric that it was 80k. When I copied him the thread, he called Audi corporate who confirmed 80k. I also spoke to the two dealers that I and my wife used for our respective cars and each stated 80k for both the 2.0tdi and 2.7tdi units. Sure enough when I had my 56k service I was told on pickup and later received a letter informing me of the recommended 80k cambelt change. IIRC I called up when the engine was on or about 79/80k, and the cambelt was changed. It's possible that something has changed since the middle of last year, but I'd be surprised.
|
|
Its still 80k on my 2.0tdi vw golf according to my latest receipt , so mr sweeney you are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
