I am looking at the above car and have a round £5000.00 to spend. I was looking at the HDI models, but there appears to more choice and better spec on the petrol. Is the petrol worth considering, or will the car be too consuming on the petrol. I do around 650 miles a month.
Any advice.
|
|
I would get the petrol for this relatively modest mileage.
|
|
What is mpg from the petrol. I have heard as well that the petrol engines are unrealible.
|
You be doing about 8,000 miles a year. Trust us, we in the back room worked it out years ago. It's not worth the additional purchase price, and 5ppl higher cost of diesel at that mileage. Also, if you do lots of short journeys the car wil never get warm.
I looked into it and the difference doing 8,500pa. The difference in annual cost between a petrol car doing 20mpg and 40mpg diesel drinker is (assuming 90ppl petrol and 95ppl diesel) is £800 ignoring supposedly increased costs of car purchase, servicing and the potential problems if previous misfuelling.
For that cost I have a very very fast, quiet and smooth Subaru Outback rather than clattery derv drinker.
|
|
I had the 2.0 HDi Picasso for 2 years and 45,000 miles, averaged 41 mpg and that's with a high percentage of long runs - I reckon the aerodynamics don't help it at speed. Definitley petrol even if you get 25mpg (and you should see 30 mpg) it will still be much less expensive to buy and only a little bit more to fuel.
|
But Citroen petrol engines are notoriously horrible, and diesels renowned for their ability - although not, compared with VW ones, their fuel efficiency.
The diesels are lovely to drive smooth, relaxed, torquey and quiet, the 1.6 petrols in particular are thrashy and sound strained.
I personally would not even consider a Picasso with a petrol motor.
Just my thoughts...
|
|
Thanks for your help, most appreciated.
|
|
|
Interestingly, while my C5 was in for repairs I had both a petrol Picasso and a diesel Picasso for about a week at a time. The petrol one (I think it was a 1600 - so 1800 might have been better) was horribly slow, needing lots of revs to keep it bowling along at anything like a reasonable rate and in the space of 7-10 days (when I'd normally put about £40 of diesel into my 2.2 HDI C5) I landed up putting £60 of petrol into the Picasso! The 2.0 HDI Picasso on the other hand had much more oomph and returned similar figures to the 2.2 C5
I did quite liked the Picasso - it's a likeable enough beastie - high comfy seating and a reassuring feel to the handling that you wouldn't expect from a thing that looks like a van. My one gripe was that I had to tie down the roof aerial every time I ventured into the garage - otherwise I would have chopped it off on the top of the doorway!
I take the other poster's points about low mileage use not justifying diesel, but I'd suggest that you try a good long drive in both first to appreciate the difference in performance. Certainly, if you're going for petrol get the biggest engine size - it's a hefty body to drag around with a small engine.
Graeme
|
I have a 51 plate picasso HDi owned since new. I have put 104,000 miles on it. I really like it. I check MPG each time I fill up and it has never dropped below 50mpg. The average over several years is just over 52mpg - including a lot of motorway driving. The best - 65 mpg has been achieved in France and South Wales - both involved long periods in fourth gear at 40 mph. I am certain of the South Wales one as I filled up at the same pump at my local garage - before and after a short holiday.
However, I try to not go over 70 on motorways and a colleague, who had one, got much lower mpg but drove much more vigorously (until the Police caught her but that's another story).
I test drove 2 petrol versions and the diesel - I found the petrol ones slow and bouncy.
The only fly in the ointment is if you buy a second hand diesel whether it has been mis-fuelled which presumably would cause major problems.
If you want any more info I'll post some more.
Best wishes
Norm
|
As others have said I think you really need ot test drive both versions, and perhaps for more than a run round the block, before you make a decision.
My last long term experience of PSA petrols was a 1600 BX (RS version); no faster and much less flexible than the equivalent diesel. Occasional loan cars since suggest little has changed.
The premium for diesels on these cars reflects more than just the perceived economy.
|
|
Another vote for the diesel, as a former owner of a 2.0 HDI. I much prefer the drive of a diesel over petrol for everyday use - much more relaxed biut also quicker as well as more economical than the petrol. The only problem I had was a prematurely slipping clutch - replaced under warranty.
|
|
I had a 1.6 petrol Picasso for 3.5 years and have nothing but praise for it. It was comfy, economical, very cheap to service and I found it very reliable. Prior to the Picasso I had a Saab 9000 2.0 Turbo and since the Picasso I have had a Subaru Legacy 2.5. So obviously the Picasso was slower than either of those and did require a few revs to produce any kind of performance, but I never found it too bad and it was quite capable of keeping up with the traffic around town and would cruise motorways in excess of the UK legal speed limit with ease. Obviously the diesel is preferable if money is no object, but I wouldn't worry about going with the petrol Picasso if you find one that meets your needs.
|
|
thanks everyone for your advice. will take it all on board
|
|
|
