Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Nomag

I've just been reading HJ's weekly emails column. I've noticed he increasingly warns people off diesels largely due to the high cost of maintenance of all the emissions equipment over time. But is he over exaggerating. I quote:

"But the hassle and cost is considerable. AdBlue to add regularly, then the possibility of AdBlue heater, DPF and EGR failures if not straight away, in the future. Those are the reasons I'd be wary of diesel. Not so economical when you have to spend £2,000 - £4,000 replacing emissions equipment after 3 - 4 year"

Now I accept that EGR and DPF failures occur. I'm sure some Adblue heaters fail also. But what is the frequency of these failures compared with the number of diesel cars equipped as such on the road? There must be many millions of DPF equipped diesels out there, likewise EGRs. I also find it hard to accept that these costs would be likely at 3-4 years. I've personally ran two DPF equipped diesels, first a 2009 Smax 2.2 which ran to 90k miles over 6 yeras with no diesel emissions equipment related problems, second my 2011 IX35 currently on 70k miles again with no diesel emissions equipment problems.

Admittedly those that do lower mileages will be more likely to suffer DPF problems at an earlier stage. But I just don't buy that the average user, doing a sensible mileage, will incur these costs at 3-4 years old. I accept that the governments are now getting their knickers in a twist about NOx, and there is a distinct anti-diesel feel in the air. This may just play into the hands of those who might want to purchase a second hand diesel vehicle in the near future, as prices go down and used petrol prices go up.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - SLO76
While you're not guaranteed to have problems they're simply more complex than a petrol driven equivalent and more complexity means more problems later in life.

A few trips to your local auction house will reveal loads of modern diesels with knackered turbos, EM and DPF lights illuminated on dashboards and dealers keen to offload rather than spend a fortune trying to fix them. Sadly Joe public is all too keen to scoop them up and be bitten squarely on the ass by a big bill afterwards.

The warnings are justified although possibly it is a little overzealous to say they'll be economically unviable at 3-4yrs old. Move this forward to 6-7yrs though and a modern DPF equipped diesel can and more often than not does become a total money pit.

As for your S-Max, well you were lucky. My neighbour has a 2007 2.0 TDCi Galaxy that's been a never ending financial drain, with a recent £1,200 bill for a clutch and DMF the latest in a long list of bills and I was chatting to a taxi driver who landed a bill for a new engine on his 1.8 diesel Mondeo at just over 80k, he couldn't explain what had went wrong though with zero mechanical knowledge. Another had the engine in his Citroen Berlingo replaced at around 80k too.

Edited by SLO76 on 03/06/2017 at 00:22

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - skidpan

We drove diels from 1996 to 2015 and loved them. The economy was brilliant and the drivabilty staggering compared to the last similar sized petrol powered cars we had. As the years went on the refinement improved to be almost on a level with petrols, the BMW 118D was virtually indishtinguishable.

But while we never had any DPF or other issues regular regens were a pain especially when they almost always happened at an inconvenient time. So we tried a Seat Leon 1.4 TSi 140 with the turbo petrol engine when we swapped the 118D. It was faster than the BMW, quieter than the BMW and almost as economical as the BMW but it was £2000 less than a Leon with an identically powerful diesel, simply brilliant.

Now the leon has been swapped for a Superb with the same engine and the wife drives a Nissan Note with the 1.2 DiG-S engine which whilst not as good as a 1.4 TSi is still more than capable and considering its use is mostly in town very economical.

No more diesels for us, there is a better alternative.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - gordonbennet

If cars were designed with maintenance in mind half the issues wouldn't arrise.

EGR's would be easy access simple to clean and replace, not the operation some entail costing 4 figures.

Cambelts should be a maximum of one hour labour to replace, there is no reason why all sprockets should not have woodruff keys fixing them permanently in place and timing marks, a cambelt should be £200 maximum at the dealer and they shouldn't be driving half a dozen items and should not be driving the water pump at all.

Timing chains don't need to be made of cheese and again sited for access, and anyone with an ounce of sense is going to ignore the maker's ludicrous ideas of minimal oil change intervals, a well designed duplex cam chain in an engine serviced properly should last the life of the car.

DPF's don't need to be the guessing game they now are, lorries with DPF's have an info screen available on the menu, the driver can check the state of the DPF and trigger a regen if needed when convenient.

We the car buyers are the ones to blame for the state of things, if we stopped buying into these things, and here the used car buyer holds the cards, the makers would have sorted their act out long ago.

We the car users also have to take responsibility by not looking after the good vehicles we have, this means using and servicing with a bit of mechanical sympathy and common sense.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Stanb Sevento

DPF's don't need to be the guessing game they now are, lorries with DPF's have an info screen available on the menu, the driver can check the state of the DPF and trigger a regen if needed when convenient.

That sounds briliant to me, it could eliminate so many of the problems people have. So if you have been pottering around in town for a few days the first time your on the open road you trigger a regen. Brilliant.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT

DPF's don't need to be the guessing game they now are, lorries with DPF's have an info screen available on the menu, the driver can check the state of the DPF and trigger a regen if needed when convenient.

That sounds briliant to me, it could eliminate so many of the problems people have. So if you have been pottering around in town for a few days the first time your on the open road you trigger a regen. Brilliant.

Yes - it annoys me that dealer diagnostic software can read DPF % full and force a regen if necessary but the owner/driver can't - just like it annoys me the dealer software can read the Adblue tank % full but I can't.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Engineer Andy

DPF's don't need to be the guessing game they now are, lorries with DPF's have an info screen available on the menu, the driver can check the state of the DPF and trigger a regen if needed when convenient.

That sounds briliant to me, it could eliminate so many of the problems people have. So if you have been pottering around in town for a few days the first time your on the open road you trigger a regen. Brilliant.

Yes - it annoys me that dealer diagnostic software can read DPF % full and force a regen if necessary but the owner/driver can't - just like it annoys me the dealer software can read the Adblue tank % full but I can't.

Indeed, especially as the driver can make a far better choice as to the best time for a regen than a bit of software that doesn't know where its driving to and for how long. I'm amamzed that there isn't an adblue level gauge though - a really poor oversight. Does the system even have a low level warning like the oil and fuel systems? If not, that's irresponsible of the manufacturers.

How often does the adblue have to be topped up? From other posters, I understand its about the same price as fuel, but I presume far less is needed for its purpose.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT

DPF's don't need to be the guessing game they now are, lorries with DPF's have an info screen available on the menu, the driver can check the state of the DPF and trigger a regen if needed when convenient.

That sounds briliant to me, it could eliminate so many of the problems people have. So if you have been pottering around in town for a few days the first time your on the open road you trigger a regen. Brilliant.

Yes - it annoys me that dealer diagnostic software can read DPF % full and force a regen if necessary but the owner/driver can't - just like it annoys me the dealer software can read the Adblue tank % full but I can't.

Indeed, especially as the driver can make a far better choice as to the best time for a regen than a bit of software that doesn't know where its driving to and for how long. I'm amamzed that there isn't an adblue level gauge though - a really poor oversight. Does the system even have a low level warning like the oil and fuel systems? If not, that's irresponsible of the manufacturers.

How often does the adblue have to be topped up? From other posters, I understand its about the same price as fuel, but I presume far less is needed for its purpose.

My VW Touareg does have a level sensor, accessible to the ECU but not the driver - it displays Low Adblue Warning if range is less than 1,500 miles - if it goes to empty during the journey, the engine won't restart until topped up - but doesn't cut out.

My 3.0 TDi SUV uses about 1 litre/400 miles - the tank is 19.5 litres - so I could do 7,500 miles between fill-ups but prefer to add 10 litres every 4,000.

Prices vary - VW dealers charge £1.50/litre including labour - it's available in 10 litre containers for DIY use at about £14, so £1.40/litre, it's also available on a pump at HGV filling stations at 60-80p/litre.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Stanb Sevento

Yes - it annoys me that dealer diagnostic software can read DPF % full and force a regen if necessary but the owner/driver can't - just like it annoys me the dealer software can read the Adblue tank % full but I can't.

It surprisingly easy to get that information now, all you need is an OBD bluetooth thing, its like a large memory stick that plugs into the diagnostic port under the dashboard. Install the app on a smartphone and away you go. I just bought one for £11 but the software came on a mini CD and Im struggeling to find drawer type CD drive to use it. I was recomended a free app called VAG-DPF-free that gives real time DPF data as you drive, try Googling it.

www.gearbest.com/other-car-gadgets/pp_380246.html

Edited by Stanb Sevento on 06/06/2017 at 00:11

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Stanb Sevento

Your a rare breed in hear Nomag, in not thinking that diesels are guaranteed trouble. I personally am a lot more optimistic because I have had several 2.0 L TDis without the slightest problem, well a sensor failed on my Golf estate that cost me £170.

A lot of the problems you hear about are I believe are because people don’t understand how their car works and use it over extended periods never giving it the chance to maintain itself and regenerate the DPF. Early EURO 5 cars in 2009 were not nearly as resilient as later versions in 2014 because the emissions hardware is greatly improved. Combined catalyst and DPF bolted straight on to the cylinder head runs much hotter than the DPF under the floor of earlier versions and passively regenerates more easily. Two channel exhaust gas recirculation means a lot of the exhaust going through the EGR valve is soot and oil free with less chance of build up. A properly set up AdBlue system requires less exhaust gas to be recirculated so less soot in total. EURO 6 engines take this a step further with manifold in head and heat up very quickly and are less affected by low ambient temperature. The world of diesel is changing quickly.

As Ive said in other threads I believe lower mileage is fine for diesel and its much more the type of driving you do that matters, as well as the economics of course.

I was talking to a fellow Sharan owner a few days ago, his car has done 120K miles with no problems. He uses an OBD2 device in the car and can tell the ash loading in the DPF is only 11% so he has plenty of life left in it. I have just bought one of these for £11 that works with a bluetooth smart phone.

Edited by Stanb Sevento on 03/06/2017 at 10:16

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - notagoodname

You make some very good points Nomag. I'm currently looking at buying a used VW Sharan; I've read the Adblue heaters 'are not very reliable'.

Failure rate? No idea. I've spoken to two VW dealers who both say they've never had one go. 'They would say that wouldn't they' is a fair point but it's difficult for the punter to quantify these risks. It doesn't take many people with an issue to make a lot of noise on forums..

Overall I think I prefer the thought of a diesel for a large MPV over a small, overworked petrol.

Edited by notagoodname on 03/06/2017 at 11:12

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - De Sisti

I drive a 2003 BMW 320d SE Touring. The car has been meticulously maintained and doesn't have the dreadded DPF filter. Although mainly used for shorter journeys, it does get a good motorway trip every weekend.

Apart from the usual things that need replacing on most cars (front brake discs and pads this year) and the fact that depreciation is not a factor; I intend to keep the car running for another 3 - 4 years (110,000 miles and still on original clutch and turbo*), where upon imminent retirement would see me aim to buy a Japanese car with a long warranty as a replacement.

*Yes, I know, mechanical things do fail.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Engineer Andy
Overall I think I prefer the thought of a diesel for a large MPV over a small, overworked petrol.

As Steve says, it not the low annual mileage per-se that kills diesel engines, but how they are driven. If you use it for short journeys to the shops of school and very little in the way of longer journeys on a regular basis, then it spells trouble. I also believe that some makes adherance to long service intervals also does not help matters.

I would say that people with families often buy MPVs, which often pushes them into buying a diesel because the petrol engined versions can't, under full load (weight - i.e. when going on holiday with the family), cope so well. The problem arises when for the remainder of the year, its used for short journeys as I previously described.

Personally, I think that modern petrol-driven estate cars (even normally-aspirated ones) are a much better bet in the long term, as they weigh less than an MPV with a similar sized boot and are more fuel efficient (less drag due to the less upright shape) and cost less. I wouldn't go for a really small turbo charged version for the reasons others have given - preferably a 1.4/1.5T or 2ltr petrol. A shame estates have fallen out of fashion - like saloons, I often prefer their shape to hatches.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT

It's a non-starter to use potentially high future repair costs due to modern turbo-diesel complexity - modern turbo-petrols are just as complex, just as expensive if they go wrong and potentially more likely to as they're now small capacity high-stress engines.

I asked my trusted local independent, which engine to get in a newish Skoda Octavia, the 1.4 TSi petrol or 2.0 CRDi petrol - his response was unequivocal, buy the diesel and save a third on fuel as repair costs are likely to be about the same.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Avant

SWMBO's Audi A1 1.4 petrol uses less fuel than my Volvo V60 2-litre diesel. I think a VW Group 2-litre diesel would do better than the Volvo, but I very much doubt that you'd save 'a third on fuel' compared with the 1.4 petrol.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - skidpan

now small capacity high-stress engines

What complete bull5h1te, they are not highly stressed at all. My 1.4 TSi rarely needs more than a small amount of throttle, even when overtaking its only a small prod and at 70 mph on the motorway its only doing about 2400 rpm. In comparison the Mazda 2 litre petrols so beloved on this site need thrashing to get similar perfpormance.

The fact that the TSi does about 50 mpg on a run shows how highly stressed it is.

Its about time some of the members posting such complete nonsense drove one and experienced the way they drive without needing to be thrashed and revved.

but I very much doubt that you'd save 'a third on fuel' compared with the 1.4 petrol.

The real MPG figure for the Leon with the 140 PS 1.4 TSi is about 45 mpg, the figure for the 150 PS TDi is about 53 mpg. The diesel is about £2000 more to buy meaning the break even point is about 100,000 miles. Assuming you may get 1/2 the £2000 back come trade in its still 50,000 miles.

Considering the 1.4 TSI is just as quick, more refined and will have no DPF issues as far as I am concerned its a no brainer unless you do well over 30,000 miles a year.

Edited by skidpan on 03/06/2017 at 18:59

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Nomag

All interesting points. I am not especially anti petrol or pro diesel. But Skidpan, when you are looking at the used market, things are quite different.

I am considering a Leon FR as my next car. I do 16k a year, almost all of which is my daily 50-60 mile round trip commute. I always buy 1-2 year old vehicles. I thought I would consider a 1.4TSi, and still will, but used price wise, there is almost nothing to separate the 1.4TSi from a 2.0 TDI 184. This certainly was not the case a couple of years ago but "diesel-gate" is changing things.

The 2.0 TDI ought to give at least 5mpg more than the petrol, and is more powerful. It will eat through front tyres a bit quicker.

As I have never had any DPF/EGR issues and according to received wisdom, the newer EU6 engines warm up quicker and manage DPF regen better than my 2011 car, I'm not so skewed towards the petrol as I thought I might be.

However, I need to drive them both back to back - that may be what makes up my mind!

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Avant

Fair point, Nomag. But also bear in mind that there are too many stories of previously lively VW Group diesels not being the same after the emissions fix: you'd need to be sure of buying one that's new enough (Euro 6 presumably) not to be affected.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - bazza

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!

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Big John

I do 16k a year, almost all of which is my daily 50-60 mile round trip commute.

Likewise I do a similar mileage/commute but I suppose it depends on the typre of journey. Mine is somewhat slow & stop/start and not really compatible with a DPF. I probably should have gone for a Toyota hybrid but my wife dislikes the look of them and I'm not convinced with the seats/driving position (I'm 6ft 4")

I moved back to petrol in June 2015 just before dieselgate so buying a 14 month old petrol Superb saved me 5k over the nearest equivalent diesel. I suspect the situation would be different now!

Saying that I love the silence compared to my previous diesel and even though diesels have a great initial tourque surge , I'd forgotten about the kick of a petrol as the revs rise - addictive!!!

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - sandy56

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!

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Richard Borrie

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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Big John

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

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT

I looked at HJ's Real Mpg for our preferred alternative for our elderly Vectra-C Estate 1.9 150 diesel which is on HJ's Real Mpg pages as 45.4 mpg.

For a Skoda Octavia Estate, lighter and more modern than the Vectra, 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.

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

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - skidpan

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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT

Skidpan

- 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

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

Edited by RT on 05/06/2017 at 10:40

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - skidpan

- 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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - concrete

It is no coincidence that my ex 1.9 PD Tdi engine covered over 206K miles before I sold it on. It is still in use and will be for some time. However the technology now used to control emissions is having a detrimental affect on reliability and longevity of certain parts. The main reason HJ is advising against diesels, unless your particular circumstances dictate otherwise, is that succesive governments have and will continue to rubbish diesels. It is a tried and tested tactic. First you rubbish it, which allows you to tax the bejasus out of it. Thus fulfilling two requirments. Extra revenue for the exchequer and box ticking for the Greens. So for a better air quality it is back to petrol. Simples.

Cheers Concrete

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - nailit

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

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - gordonbennet

Nailit, your Mada is what is known as a keeper.

The new engine designs in various different makes, whilst no doubt excellent at what they do, the jury is out on how they fare long term.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - 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 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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Big John

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

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT

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

The government uses tax incentives to encourage use of a fuel or power source, nothing new there - as demand for LPG rose it was always bound to increase - just as the low/zero taxation on EVs won't last forever.

CNG seems to be gaining popularity in parts of Europe but I know little about it.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - SLO76
LPG is a compromise. Yes it's cheaper to buy but you'll use more of it, you'll lose boot space in most cases to the LPG tank and some of the poorer conversions I've seen aren't safe. In a heavy rear impact it's highly likely the mess of pipework and that secondary tank sitting in the cabin filled will highly flammable fuel will be compromised. They're also known for burning out valves on certain models. You've got to carry both petrol and lpg which adds weight and harms mpg again.
Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Engineer Andy

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

One of the arguments you stated why people have often choosen diesel-engined cars over petrol-engined ones is because they are 'more suitable' for larger, non-aerodynamic ones, i.e. MPVs and big 4x4s. As far as I can tell, the birth rate hasn't gone up in 30 years (in fact, either going down or [due to immigration effects] stabilising), so why DO we need bigger and bigger cars? I know we're getting more overweight, but we're not that fat yet to require cars almost twice the size they were in the 1980s and 90s.

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.

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).

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - RT
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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - 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 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

Edited by skidpan on 05/06/2017 at 17:38

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - nailit

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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Stanb Sevento

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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Engineer Andy
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.

I never said people should restricted from buying certain cars - that's putting words into my mouth! I said that people should carefully consider what they will be using the car for to find the one, particularly the engine/fuel type, that best suits their driving needs and gives them the best value over the term they own it, and that includes the second hand value.

As people start to realise that using a diesel engined vehicle for one ot two short trips a day will lead to costly reliability issues down the road (even if it is after 4-5 years), the second hand prices of such cars will reduce and especially for low mileage examples. people will have to face up to paying more at the new price and getting less second hand, which drastically reduces the benefit of extra mpg, and lessoned still on low mileage cars used primary for short trips.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - bazza

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..

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - corax
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.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Fishermans Bend
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.

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.

4. Passengers are lkess likely to suffer from travel sickness.

5. Some some with sliding rear doors, eliminates kids banging other parked cars with the doors.

6. All seats face forwards.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Manatee

Yes, absolutely it's overdone. Everything is, more or less. You can't make news or policies out of a minor problem.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Avant

Any exspert care to comment on why the 165 bhp Mazda 6 should be so different from the 145 bhp version? The obvious answer would be greater torque - but both are quoted at 155 lb/ft, on this sute and in What Car.

Maybe the torque is measured at different RPM rates for each car?

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Engineer Andy

I believe the 165 was tested on HJ, somewhere, perhaps on the 3 rather than the 6. Like many high-revving Japanese cars, to get the best out of it, you need to rev it hard (fine on reliability, just not so good on a comfortable driving experience).

Personally speaking, you can't really compare the 120bhp 3 / 145bhp 6 2 ltr petrol engine with the VAG 1.4 150bhp engine in a Golf or Leon, but maybe in a Octavia. In theory, the VAG 122bhp 1.4 TSi engine more matches the lower powered Mazda one, but I still found its mid-range pick-up was noticeably better (I test drove the 3 120bhp and basic Scirocco with the 1.4 TSi 122 engine - its quite a bit [smaller and] lighter than the 3, so that probably made a reasonable difference in itself).

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Stanb Sevento

Firstly Avant Im not setting myself up as any sort of expert, thats a sure way of getting shot down in flames. Id guess your thoughts are correct, the torque builds at lower rpm and stays flatter into higher rpm before falling back.

Its likely the 165 is what the engine was designed to produce, its not so much an upgrade on the 145 as the 145 is a downgrade, and I’d bet the hardware is the same on both and its the ECU that makes the difference. It may be you that presses the pedals but its the ECU that decides what responce you get for that press, its like a wife, it lets you think your in contol.

Edited by Stanb Sevento on 06/06/2017 at 10:19

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - SkodaIan

I've only ever driven the lower output 2.0 engines, but I felt the problem was with flat spots in the engine output at precisely the speeds/gearings you want to drive in. It really needed to be dropped down a gear or two to accelerate from 60 back to 70 on the motorway for example.

These may well be avoided in the higher output simply because the engine map matches the gearbox better. It isn't an absolute power output shortage, just annoying to drive in normal conditions.

I found exactly the same thing with the newer version 1.6 diesel Leon. The original 105hp diesel felt better to drive under normal conditions than the new 110hp update. The 110hp version with the 7 speed auto felt much better too, though it did change gear a lot.

Anti diesel hype exaggerated? - Engineer Andy

I think the difference is sort of similar to that between the old Honda Civic type S 2ltr engine at 160bhp and the Type R's with 197bhp - same engine, same torque but tweaked ECU to produce higher power at higher revs, just less so in the case of the Mazda engine, the 120 a very de-rated version designed for fuel efficiency and even greater reliability/longevity.

I was a bit underwhelmed with the 120bhp engine (quicker, but not hugely so) myself, compared to my old 1.6 with 104bhp. It was fine, but didn't feel as much an improvement as I'd hoped. Maybe it was too new (less than 500 miles on the demo's odometer) and not worn in yet. Anyhoo, the bigger 2.2 diesel is a quick car and the 1.4 VAG 150 engine was really nice. I just wouldn't buy the former for short trips (and that particular engine's poor reliability record) nor the latter as I was looking at an auto and don't like the reliability or hesitation (of some examples) of the twin clutch gearboxes. If VAG offered the 1.4 TSi 150 with a slush box, I would be interested.

Back to diesels - what seems to be the case as well is that even with diesels not being suited to short trips and becoming very unreliable after 4-5 plus years as a result, the level of failures seems to vary quite a bit from make to make and engine to engine. Design of engine seems to have a reasonable impact, not as much as usage pattern, but a significant one.

 

Ask Honest John

Value my car