I've just been calculating my costs as part of a general re-jig and reassessment of finances, and worked out that if I swapped my 45 mpg diesel for a 35 mpg petrol, based on the miles covered last year, I would have to find a few pence under £85 extra each month for fuel costs, even allowing for a 5p per litre price difference in favour of petrol.
As the car spends a lot of time in stop/start conditions or idling in traffic, I suspect most Mondeo sized petrols would struggle to make 35 mpg in all honesty.
£85 a month is a significant amount of money. The gas and electricity bill paid each month. A chunk towards the council tax. Road tax and insurance paid twice over in a year... Or if you want to be pessimistic, enough to spend a grand on repairs every year that wouldn't be needed on a petrol engine before you were out of pocket. Although I accept that cr diesels are cripplingly expensive when they do fail, I also believe most don't give any trouble. This is borne out from talking to the fleet manager at my previous employer who runs a fleet of over 200 cars, half of which are cr diesel, and most of which do their 100k/3yr stints with either total reliability, or silly little non diesel specific faults (electrical faults, coolant leaks etc)
For 20k+ PA and in a family sized car, diesel is a no brainer IMO
The "missing" 1500-2000 RPM off the top end of the rev range is of absolutely no concern to me on my commute or when carting the kids about, and the effortless punch on tap when driving normally is preferable in any case. The Mondeo's old school TD engine is tolerable to drive, but sips fuel and is utterly reliable (my main criteria) and from inside the car, the Scenic's common rail diesel is quieter and smoother than a lot of petrol engines I've experienced. It may die and bankrupt us, but the odds are that it probably won't. In any case, an engine management fault on a petrol engine can easily rack up a four figure bill. You just pay yer money and take your chances. Literally.
At the moment, diesel walks it for me. If 10-15k falls off my annual mileage, I'll reconsider.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 22/01/2008 at 23:52
|
We have run diesels for 15 years with the odd petrol.
As Oilrag says, diesels are unbeatable for short journeys.
And £35 VED is not to be ignored.
Maintenance? low.
Exhausts last years.
Much less stressful in slow moving traffic due to the torque.
|
"re-curring expense of a diesel"
What are these "re-curring expenses" ? Having run Cit diesels for over 20 years (about 500k miles) I have never had anything done to an engine except routine cambelt, oil changes and 6 glowplugs - and a couple of those engines did over 150k miles.
|
Re-curring expenses as in you have to buy the stuff on a re-curring basis and it's dearer than petrol - unless you've managed to find a way of running a diesel engine without putting any in :-)
If you do circa 20K a year then it may pay on the long run but if you do average mileage then it pays to stick with petrol - especially as you can get 100-120 bhp out of modern 1.4-1.6 petrol engine.
|
|
We won't be having another diesel. Although I have no complaints about our Renault dCi, it doesn't make sense at less than 10K a year. So it's a petrol Renault next, probably the new Laguna or might wait another year for the new Megane. Or I might break the long habit of buying Renaults and get another VW.
|
Interesting that many of the replies here make the presumption that it all comes down to economics.
If cost was the main factor in buying cars, we'd all be haring around in poverty spec Chevy Matiz's or Ford Ka's or whatever the larger equivalent might be for those with more passengers. And there'd be no supercars or anything else impractical.
I'm probably on the cusp of annual mileage that makes a diesel financially more sensible than a petrol, but a mate of mine has just bought a diesel C4, and he's lucky if he does 3,000 miles a year!
I just like the way they drive, the lazy power delivery is far more attractive to me than any ability to rev beyond 5,000rpm.
And there's also the argument that it's perhaps worth paying a wee bit more financially if it means using less of a finite resource like oil.
Just a thought! If someone is genuinely undecided between petrol and diesel versions of the same model, and the economics of the decision are not hugely important, then the best advice is to simply drive both and see which you prefer.
Edited by XantKing on 23/01/2008 at 22:37
|
|
Most of the "economic" argument is just to bolster up prior stances. There have been one or two salient comments about depreciation, but most of the argument against diesel for average mileage use is made without calculating the full cost. The only true measure of cost is a calculation expressed in pence per mile over say 3 years, including initial cost, depreciation, fuel and servicing. If an owner likes or dislikes diesel, the economic argument may not be as relevant, as XantKing says!
|
|
|
|
"Re-curring expenses as in you have to buy the stuff on a re-curring basis and it's dearer than petrol - unless you've managed to find a way of running a diesel engine without putting any in :-)"
Oh I get it now, pay £1.08 a litre for diesel and get 50 mpg or pay £1.02 for petrol and get 30 mpg.
|
|
I just can't stand the noise that diesels make....
|
|
|
Over the past 5 years and 62K miles, my Passat 130 has averaged 46.5mpg. That's real brim-to-brim measurements, not from the trip computer.
Show me a petrol-powered 1.4 tonne family barge that will get anywhere near that. Also as it's a company car, it saves me a small fortune in tax.
Also the idea of a "narrow rev band" is misleading. Yes, the REV range is narrow, but the SPEED range is wide because diesels have long gearing.
The Passat produces real usable power from 1500 to over 4000rpm. In 4th gear, that's strong, seamless pull from 30mph to 80mph+, with no need to change down for A- and B-road overtaking or hills.
|
I had 6 cars last year - four petrol and 2 diesel.
I prefer diesel on a longer commute, not just because of the economy but the relaxed pull of the engines at motorway speeds.
Shorter town based journeys I would prefer a petrol for the nippy nature of petrol engines.
At the moment I have a 50/50 split of motorway/town commuting and I have a diesel!
Downside of diesel - slower off the mark, takes ages to warm up (cold car on a winter morning!) and more expensive fuel.
|
I prefer diesel on a longer commute not just because of the economy but the relaxed pull of the engines at motorway speeds. Shorter town based journeys I would prefer a petrol for the nippy nature of petrol engines. At the moment I have a 50/50 split of motorway/town commuting and I have a diesel!
I've been reading this thread with much curiosity, but I think that what was said above is a pretty fair judgement of the situation. I have a 2 litre diesel, and tend to be doing much less mileage than I used to making it borderline economically to have a diesel. My experience is that if I spend a coupld of weeks only driving around town, I get hacked off by my diesel. However the next time I doo a 100 mile + motorway trip, I love it again !
As someone else has also said, its not just about economics. Sometimes when I drive an average petrol car like my wifes Focus 1.6, I get the feeling that it is 'broken' because of the lack of torque !
|
Craig has elegantly explained the advantage of the diesel's low speed torque rather better than I did in another thread. The speed range magnification with longer gearing is the reason why a diesel behaves quite differently from a petrol engine used in a lower gear to increase its torque. Put a heavy trailer on the back and all is revealed.
As far as warm up time is concerned, to some extent the diesel is a victim of its own thermal efficiency. Some VAG engines have additional glowplugs in the coolant circuit which are powered up (when alternator demand permits) when needed. My Skoda Superb will blow warm air after about one mile of driving at 30 mph in 4th gear. After 2 miles it's hot.
659.
|
My BMW 320d pulls strongly in a linerar fashion all the way to 4000 rpm (red line at 4250) but I miss the ability to waft along at low revs with plenty of torque on tap in response to minimal pressure on the accelerator. Thus this modern diesel has many of the characteristics of a petrol engine.
I suppose it is pretty economical. It's roughly the same power (170 bhp) as my MINI Cooper S, but does 42-48 mpg as opposed to 32-35 (and it's dragging a heavier car around).
Sometimes, though, I feel the engine is a bit of a lump and I'd prefer a petrol.
|
Not driven a 320d, is there less low-end 'grunt' compared to other diesels?
|
320d in our family didn't have all that much grunt until the turbo failed at 45k (unusual that i hear someone say?), whilst they had it in, BM also changed the troublesome inlet manifold, the cat and something else the memory of which evades me (all warranty).
Since then, its had that lovely turbo whistle (which it didn't have before) from very low revs and pulls like a train (which it didn't do before), and very economical.
Its a compact, and personally i hate the ride quality, in fact i don't really have man breasts, but i can assure you i'm aware of them driving that even on the A14, luckily i only drive it once in a blue, mind you it goes like a scalded cat, and handles very well.
|
Constant short stop start city runs are definitely bad for a diesel car
What is the technical reason behind this?
I though such short trips are bad for any car - incl. petrol ones.
|
Not driven a 320d is there less low-end 'grunt' compared to other diesels?
>>Well I've not a huge experience of diesels but certainly less low-down grunt than a VAG PD.
GordonBennet has got me thinking. My 320d pulls well but I'm not sure I'd put it in the 'scalded cat' or 'rocket' categories. Maybe I should have my friendly BMW dealer check it out. (Should I foresee 'They're all like that, sir'?)
|
|
I`m with J.Clarkson on this one.Diesel fuel is the devil`s own blood. It`fine for lorries and tractors. Personally,I love the sound of a petrol engine reving happily to 6-7 thousand RPM.
|
Mad Maxy, i have for many years gone by the way a car sounds giving a fairly good idea of how its running (i'm no mechanic only a kerbside cowboy).
The 320 in question never had that lovely almost imperceptible turbo whistle before it was changed (i wonder if they altered the settings whilst it was in?). Its a 51 plate E46 by the way.
Funny thing that sound on a diesel, its been my experience that a turbo diesel that doesnt have that gentle whistle always seems to be running weak and out of breath, its the midway 1500rpm sort of revs i'm talking about.
I used to notice the sounds on trucks i've driven over the years, a cummins with no whistle wouldn't pull, one running properly the turbo was the main noise supplier, similar my old landcruiser and that was almost impossible to stall, unbelievable torque.
I think the most dramatic example i've seen of this was when i had a 306 td, when i bought it there was no sound from the turbo, and the thing wouldn't pull your hat off, i richened the bosch pump just quarter a turn and the vehicle was instantly transformed into a very powerful performer, with turbo whistle and loads of torque from about 1400 rpm (2000 before), alright i know you sometimes have to fiddle about with the settings to prevent black smoke, but you get my drift.
Those days are now gone, cant do anything to them and if you do youre probably breaking some law.
Maybe a good old fashioned diesel specialist could breathe a bit more fire into it for you.
|
|
Thanks, GB. No 'turbo whistle', as there was in my Golf Mk IV GT TDI 110. The BM is an E91 almost exactly one year old.
|
i richened the bosch pump just quarter a turn and the vehicle was instantly transformed into a very powerful performer
Thats what a tuning box does. If you have a proper remap, trailored to your particular engine, you may get the same result without loads of black smoke.
Those days are now gone cant do anything to them and if you do youre probably breaking some law.
Tuning boxes and rolling road remaps are v. big business nowadays. They are not illegal you just have to remember to tell your insurance company.
;o)
|
Tuning boxes and rolling road remaps are v. big business nowadays.
Still reckon it was cheaper and easier to give the bosch pump a quarter turn, usually didn't even disturb the seal so no warranty probs either.
Not as if i could afford or even want a new car then, which leads us neatly to a recurring thread, can we dare take the risk of a euro 4 or 5 diesel out of warranty?
|
|
>>Oh I get it now, pay £1.08 a litre for diesel and get 50 mpg or pay £1.02 for petrol and get 30 mpg.<<
Clearly you must have struggled with your cse level maths Phil !
Edited by Pendlebury on 24/01/2008 at 18:54
|
"Clearly you must have struggled with your cse level maths Phil !"
How did you know! It was "O" level in those days (not sure that CSE even existed) - I was in bottom set and got a Grade 3 (pass grades went from 1 to 6 I think) - boy was I proud! Credit not to me but to an inspired Maths teacher called Willmut - (father of the Prof Ian Willmut who cloned Dolly the sheep) - brilliant bloke when dealing with lazy thickos like me!
|
Well that's done me then Phil cos you got a better grade than me.
I thought it was either CSE and they had numerical gradings or GCE which had Alpha grades.
I was trying to find some ppm quotes for a petrol and diesel car of the same model to make my point about re-curring costs - but drew a blank - 15 love to you mate.
|
|
What Car, Auto Express are 2 sources re ppm: how reliable I know not.
Edited by nortones2 on 24/01/2008 at 20:25
|
"Auto Express source re ppm: how reliable I know not. "
Oops, never realised - and I get Autoexpress each week!
For my Berlingo 1.6 HDi, ppm is 39, 1.6 petrol is 42, but "aim to pay" price for mine is £9,905, petrol is £9,484, residual after 3 yrs is 39% diesel, 38% petrol. Co2 diesel 143 tax % 18, petrol is 177/22. Petrol higher max speed and quicker 0-60 (though I don't think those are primary concerns of Berlingo owners!) MPG quoted as 38 for petrol, 52 for diesel
Those who got a decent maths grade can work out finer points!
Can't look up any others - needed a magnifying glass to read figures!
|
All right don't rub it in mate - I think the ppm costs include all the depreciation etc so you got me proper. :-)
|
"All right don't rub it in mate "
Can't even remember what we were arguing about! (or even whether we were arguing!)
;-)
Instead I will raise another glass!
Cheers!
|
|
PhilW: I'm with you on the magnifying glass! End result seems to be there is actually very little difference at the assumed 12,000 miles per annum. Some makes may vary from this: they do not all charge extra for diesel. There is no golden rule.
|
"I thought it was either CSE and they had numerical gradings or GCE which had Alpha grades"
I probably pre-date that - took my O levels in 1964 (ish!)
|
I have a choice of Mondeo TDCi or Alfa 147.
Guess which one I drive to work (30 miles each way, 20 on motorway).
The diesel would save me £1.40 in fuel each day.
The diesel is possibly quieter.
The diesel looks like a rep-mobile and is a bit of a barge to drive. Best to avoid high revs as its not a pleasant noise.
The Alfa is fun to drive and there aren't millions of them.
The engine is already pulling 4000rpm doing 80 in 5th, but if you're going to have some engine noise then at least make it a beautiful one!
In the Alfa I can also get to work with fewer gear changes.
|
|
Look guys this debate will always divide. I drive both and can see the benefits of both. Please diesel owners stop talking about performance is you want performance drive PETROL.If you want economy go for DIESEL. If you look on the PARKERS website you will be staggered by how long it takes to break even if you buy a diesel as opposed to petrol it can take up to 11 years! in some cases. A diesel engine is, and always will be noiser, less refined and have a slower top speed than a petrol, all diesel owners ever talk about is mid range torque, they never talk about the fact that a petrol of similar size will always rev faster due to the design of the engine and the richer refined fuel. Developments in engine technology have impoved their refinement and economy of diesels but the downside is if anything does go wrong it cost a small countries GDP to fix my best friends ( 2001 MERCEDES E CLASS ELEGANCE TURBO DIESEL ESTATE) cost £3000 to replace turbo after 80K). Everyone also omits to mention that the new petrol engine technology is superb take HONDA vtec, TOYOTA valvematic, VW tsi, and the new MULTIAIR technology being developed by FIAT. I went to drive the new Suzuki Splash which my sister was going to buy the 1.2 petrol was so superior to 1.3 Diesel it was amazing, lighter, swifter handled better and had had the refinement you only get with petrol. I have to drive diesel cars and vans at work nearly every day, and I am sorry "Dieselheads" I can't wait to get back into my Honda Accord 2.0i vtec its like another world. I am just not interested is saving about £1 a day in fuel costs this is just my opinion, even though most of what Jeremy Clarkson comes out can be total garbage I have to agree with him on this one. For the average everyday motorist I believe petrol is the choice. By the way also drove the new Honda JAZZ 1.4 vtec what an engine, powerful and so quiet I thought it had stalled its fuel economy is superb also. So thats it guys make up your own mind, but drive some new petrol cars and do a true costing and remember we were told that there would be no petrol cars in 10 years time. it didnt happen. and never will, (until the oil runs out) but then again there will be no diesels either!
|
I have never bought a diesel in 35 yrs of driving- my current car is a 2.5v6 Mondeo and it is smooth quiet and fast. My mpg is about 30mpg and I use the outside lane when there is one. This is all down to personal preference, I would rather have the space and power than pay a LOT more to maybe save a few pence each day on fuel.
I would buy a diesel but there is too many stories about the pitfalls of newish diesels.
Petrol for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
