Governments of all persuasion all have the knives out for diesel and in the next few years we're likely to see a ban in major cities and tax changes to encourage us towards petrol and/or electric. The car companies are moving away from future diesel designs, Volvo has said they will not invest in next generation diesels. One can argue that the latest generation of Euro 6 diesels are cleaner than ever, but the damage seems to be done. I agree with Skidpan that there's simply no point any more in choosing diesel when such efficient petrol alternatives like the Tsi range and others are available.

I'm currently running a Euro 4 1.9 tdi, which is an absolutely great engine unfortunately about to be condemmed by the serious faults in the car attached to it! I will very much miss it, when I shortly switch to petrol but there are some great petrol motors out there.

I had the good fortune yesterday to ride 400 miles across Wales on my 600cc FZ6, marvelling at the wonders of modern engines, running for hours in the range 5000 to 12000 rpm, like a swiss watch and giving me 60 mpg. Petrol can be fun!

There is a lot of good advice in the comments above. Like a lot of people I drive a 2L diesel auto, now 7 years old, 75k miles, and mostly for short trips but I do some fast blasts down the morway at times. It is maintained as per standard requirements.

I intend to keep it until approx 100-120k miles or it starts causing problems, so another few years use. It is saving me a big cash outlay to buy a newish petrol car.

Roll on BANGERNOMICS!

Just comparing a top-spec Ford S-Max, petrol vs diesel. The petrol CO2 is 180 g/km vs 130 for the diesel. The diesel goes about 10 miles further for every gallon, in other words it uses less fuel - which after all is a limited resource. So diesel may have problems, but don't for one minute think petrol is the answer.

The VAG tsi has closed the gap between petrol and diesel (I get an average of 46mpg out of my Superb 1.4tsi and previously got 50mpg out of my Superb 1.9pd) and combined with the fact that a diesel now runs with a multi £1000 chemical factory built in probaly makes petrol on some cars the way to go

HOWEVER - on larger non aerodynamic vehicles diesel may remain the fuel of choice - for now

I must admit I'm watching hybrid technology and am impressed with the way the latest Toyota/Lexus technology works - Suprisingly few moving parts and an efficient electrical/mechanical design

NB Nearly taxed out of existance here in the UK but LPG is stil the green fuel of choice in some European countries

Edited by Big John on 05/06/2017 at 00:48

For a Skoda Octavia Estate.......the 1.4TSi is 47.1 and the 2.0TDi is 53.5, both giving 150 PS - so a significant difference but not as much as I posted earlier bassed on official figures.

Those figures are even closer than those for the mechanically identical versions of the Seat Leon. If the diesel is an extra £2000 like it was for the Leon then the break even point is near enough 150,000 miles so you are going to have to be doing a mega mileage to be able to warrant buying a diesel today.

Don't think for one minute I am a diesel hater, we had 6 from 1996 to 2105 and loved them and we saved a fortune on running costs. 2 examples:

BMW 118D. It cost £300 more than the 118i when new and over the 5 1/2 years we owned it I estimated we saved about £1600 on fuel. But come trade in time the diesel was worth about £500 more than the petrol according to Parkers so over £1800 saved. Then when you consider the 118i was not such a nice drive it was game set and match.

Pretty much the same story for the Kia Ceed SW CRDI. £1000 more than the totally gutless petrol and we saved about £2000 on fuel. Parkers indicated it was worth about £800 more than the petrol when we sold it so a total saving of £1800 (again) and a much better car to drive.

If all modern petrols drove like the BMW 118I and the Ceed I would be still driving a diesel today. I have driven several other modern non-turbo perols and they were a pretty poor bunch. The Honda Civis 1800, the Toyota Avensis 1800, the Mazda 3 and 6 in 2 litre form were all gutless despite their decent peak bhp figures, I would buy none of them. The only exception was a BMW 116i I had as a service loan car. As I said above, when we bought the 118D we tried a 118i and found it poor. To try one combination of suspension and tyres the dealer sent us out in a 116i (a car we had not even considered) and it was a complete slug, why make it. Then 2 years later I was given a 116i as a service loan car and it was actually very good but when I quizzed the dealer things had changed. The 116i I originally drove had the 1600 Peugeot derived engine with about 115 PS and no torque wheras the later loan car had a detuned 2 litre motor with 123 PS and an excellent spread of torque. If I had been changing the 1 series that is a car I would have considered. But it was still pretty thirsty doing about 33 mpg according to the normally optimistic dash display.

To demonstrate how thing have moved on we have had 2 1.2 Micras with 80 PS engines. They averaged about 45 mpg in mixed use and providing you revved than and used plenty of right foot they went well enough. The the Leon and the Superb with 140 PS and 150 PS average about the same in mixed use but both perform better with no need to use either revs or much right pedal.

- we're not buying new - it'll be around 18 months old - thanks to all the doom and gloom, diesel car secondhand prices have been talked down so we can get a 2.0 TDI SE L for the same price as a 1.4 TSi SE - so no price premium, just better equipped, fuel savings plus the VED is £10/year less

Considering that there have been warnings about buying unsuitable diesel cars for years on this site it absolutely stuns me that a poster will ignore the advice simply because used values have fallen. Buying a 18 month old car that has been used in the wrong environment and then continue to use it in the wrong environment is one way to garantee getting a huge bill for a DPF which would immediately eat up most if not all the cash saved on fuel.

- the regular driver cares nothing about the intricacies of "driving experience but will no doubt drive it without mercy.

Perhaps that is true but when I spend a large sum of my own money I want something that provides a pleasant experience. Past diesels have been better than dull N/A petrols but TSi's change the game totally.

Please try one.

Skidpan;

I have resisted for quite sometime to ask you about your multiple posts stating the Mazda 2.0 ltr petrol as "being a slug" or "gutless". Reason being I had no wish to get into a 'my car is better than your car' tit-for-tat.

May I ask if the 2 ltr engined car(s) you test drove were 145ps or 165ps power?

If they were only 145ps then I can understand your opinion, but I see these engines as normally aspirated and tuned for economy rather than tuned up hot hatches. The same as my 165ps mazda 6, which I find suits me quite well, an old'ish steady driver who wants style and comfort and good economy, reliability, chain cam, no turbo worries, and a water pump without plastic internals (I believe). I find my 165ps can be driven almost llike a diesel, low down grunt etc.

With my light right foot I am averaging 43mpg (tank full to full) over 3000 miles, very small mileage on motorways, mainly urban/rural and dual carriageways, with full size spare and huge jack (well small hydraulic rather than flimsey hand cranked usual type) I might add. I am sure it's higher mpg on solo motorways but don't use them much these days.

Mazda have a 2.5 ltr petrol for the USA market, rather than using say a 2 ltr and sticking a turbo on it? Would be nice to know their reasoning on this don't you think?

It will be interesting how both mazdas skyactive and Vag's 1.4tsi survive after 5 years or more, we shall see, btw mazda's SkyActive has been around since 2013 I believe.

Nailit.

Edited by nailit on 05/06/2017 at 14:34

I have resisted for quite sometime to ask you about your multiple posts stating the Mazda 2.0 ltr petrol as "being a slug" or "gutless". Reason being I had no wish to get into a 'my car is better than your car' tit-for-tat.

May I ask if the 2 ltr engined car(s) you test drove were 145ps or 165ps power?

If they were only 145ps then I can understand your opinion, but I see these engines as normally aspirated and tuned for economy rather than tuned up hot hatches.

The 2 litre petrol Mazdas I have driven were the 120 PS in the 3 and the 145 PS in the 6. I do not expect (ore require) hot hatch performance from a family car but I do want good flexibilty and none of these engines had it. You needed to be doing over 4000 rpm to access decent performance and the gear changing required to keep the engine at these revs can be annoying or even tiring especially when trying to progress on A roads littered with idiots who refuse to overtake. Its not that I go racing everywhere, I just like a car that can overtake easilly without constant use of the gear lever.

The Honda 1.8 in the Civis is exactly the same, the 1.8 148 PS unit in the Toyota Avenis probably worse.

Having driven turbo diesels for 19 years I became used to the easy going driving manners (some early TD's I drove were total rubbish though). Our use did not fit diesels after the wife retired so we looked back at petrols again but we still wanted the easy going driving manners. We tried the 123 PS 1.4 TSi in an Octavia, fine engine but did not like the car for several reasons. Then we tried the 140 PS 1.4 TSI the Leon and it was game set and match, ordered one within 2 days. We have the 150 PS TSi in a Superb now, brilliant car.

If it was a choice of the Mazda, Honda or Toyota petrol or a diesel (probably a Kia 1.6 CRDi with 128 PS) it would be the Kia every time even though it has a DPF. Less power but better by far in daily use and on long trips (our Ceed CRDi only had 115 PS but it went really well). But the 1.4 TSi gives you more power, equal (possibly better) drivability and almost matches the mpg so why not try one and be amazed.

Big John - how is LPG being taxed out of existence? It's lower tax means it's half the price of unleaded!

The goverment started increasing the tax on LPG in the budget a few years ago so it's not as cheap as it was. MPG is worse on LPG due to its calorific value.

Likewise there used to be Powershift grants to help convert cars - alas no more. In this country conversions have dwindled and many filling stations are gradually removing lpg filling pumps

People should buy cars to are designed for the use they are going to be put to, not just because on the surface (with often overly optimistic running costs) they look better than another type. Now that both the public and legislators are finally waking up to that fact (if albeit slowly), perhaps some semblence of sense will return to the purchasing and selling of motor vehicles. If it hasn't already (even with the threat of bans in cities or punative taxes on them), then I think the second hand value of diesel cars will start to drop off, especially those that have done low mileages (implying, whether true or not, they are used inappropriately for short journeys only).

In most societies, people can buy whatever car they like, and can afford - not have artificial restraints put on them.

People don't need cars that'll do more than 70 mph - perhaps the 1940-50 models should be back in production.

Skidpan

With respect, as I do read your posts which can be educational;

As I suspected you never tested a 165ps mazda 2.0 ltr, and as you say "so why not try one and be amazed" may also be relevant with the mazda 2 ltr 165ps.

Please either refrain from calling Mazda 2.0 petrols "slugs" or "gutless" or be specific of the particular engine you are referring to.

I wish you well in your choice of car and engine.

Nailit.

Your not going to win this argument skidpad, you and I are looking for different things from our cars than the Mazda offers. I drove the Mazda as part of my quest for a new car and it wasn’t for me, it just didn’t have the urgency when you put your foot down. Nice pleasant car to drive though if you drive gently. When you look at the spec for the two engines the reason is obvious, the Mazda peak torque at 4000rpm the TSi has more from 1500rpm, peak power in the Mazda is at 6000rpm and the TSi at 4500rpm. Its like comparing a Harley Davison to a Honda Fireblade, both have their fans. Will the Mazda last longer? Its hard to say but one thing is for sure the Mazda will fall to bits around the engine just as fast as any other.

I can't fault your logic Andy, you're an engineer and buy with your head following a logical path,I tend to do the same. But you credit the general car-owning populace with too much logic! Most people buy a car simply because they fancy an SUV/crossover/whatever the latest fashion is and don't really know or think any further. There's a herd instinct too, look at the Nissan Juke ,a god-awful ugly thing that excels at nothing but it sells in droves because it's fashionable. Likewise the bigger bling stuff like the Evoque. Hideous but oh sooo cool!

I see in the news today that diesel sales are down 20% year on year in UK..

I've argued before that such cars are unnecessary, given that estate cars can easily swallow (even Focus-sized ones) oodles of luggage etc and are far more fuel efficient than an MPV or 4x4 (99% of which never go propely off road and don't need the 'extra grip' [especially when the vast majority are shod on low profile tyres anyway which are nigh on useless in snowy/icy conditions) of equivalent load-carrying capacity, and yet people keep buying them in huge numbers, and for vastly inflated prices. A modern, medium engined petrol car will be not that far off a diesel engined one for mpg overall, and equal or even better for short trips. The petrol-engined cars also are far less complex and require far fewer expensive components that diesels do just to pass emissions tests.

There are a few reasons for the popularity of MPV's.

1. Many people like to sit higher, especially women. It's nice to be able to see the view over the hedges when you're travelling. You're also less likely to be blinded by oncoming headlights.

2. They are much easier for families to get kids, baby seats out of the car. Doing that in an estate can be back breaking, especially if you have a back issue to start with.

3. They are easier to access for people with limited mobility.