100K miles needed to benefit from diesel

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Fri 21 Jun 2013 11:08
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - John Boy

An AA report:

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2345194/P...l

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 11:40
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - craig-pd130

For private owners, yes. For company-car drivers, diesel is virtually the default choice in the current tax scheme, especially if you pay for your own fuel.

For example, my current company car is a Volvo V60 D3. The benefit-in-kind tax is £1,713 per year. The equivalent petrol-engine variant (same trim & spec) would have a BIK tax of £1620, saving me £93 per year.

However, the diesel has given me a genuine at-the-pumps average of 47mpg. I'm sure the petrol variant would get nowhere near that, but let's assume an average of 35mpg.

I do 14,000 miles per year. My D3 diesel at 47mpg will use 298 gallons, at the current pump price of £1.409 per litre, that's £1,908 in fuel per year.

The petrol variant would use 400 gallons at an average of 35mpg. At the pump price of standard unleaded (£1.349 per litre) that's £2,450.

So the diesel saves £540 per year in fuel.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 11:59
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - RT

That 100k doesn't have to be done by the first owner - the initial purchase price will include a premium for diesel but part of that will be recovered by an increased p/x value compared to petrol.

So as long as the car does 100k before being scrapped, then diesel is the way to go - particularly as the average mileage at scrapping is considerable more. - indeed if the average age of scrapping is still 14 years then 7,000 miles/year becomes the breakeven point but in reality I doubt it's that low.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 13:03
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - davecooper

Putting costs to one side for the moment, there are now an increasing number of cars where the highest perfomance variant is a Diesel. This may be onother factor to consider in the Petrol v Diesel argument.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 13:09
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - Collos25

The petrol variant would use 400 gallons at an average of 35mpg. At the pump price of standard unleaded (£1.349 per litre) that's £2,450.

So the diesel saves £540 per year in fuel.

But this does not include the extra service costs or the difference in initial cost if the servicing was done properly it would take out most of this saving..

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 14:02
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - RT

The petrol variant would use 400 gallons at an average of 35mpg. At the pump price of standard unleaded (£1.349 per litre) that's £2,450.

So the diesel saves £540 per year in fuel.

But this does not include the extra service costs or the difference in initial cost if the servicing was done properly it would take out most of this saving..

For many diesels, the only extra servicing is replacement/draining of the fuel filter.

The cost differential between petrol is a "supply & demand" thing, nothing to do with build cost - just like automatic transmissions where Europeans often pay a premium for auto but Americans pay a premium for manual. For diesels, the initial price gap is reducing as diesels become an ever-bigger % of new car sales.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 14:07
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - Collos25

The cost differential between petrol is a "supply & demand" thing, nothing to do with build cost - just like automatic transmissions where Europeans often pay a premium for auto but Americans pay a premium for manual. For diesels, the initial price gap is reducing as diesels become an ever-bigger % of new car sales

Actually its not the injectors for one cost much more to produce for a diesel, the difference in price between petrol and diesel cars is a true reflection of production costs.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 14:26
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - RT

The cost differential between petrol is a "supply & demand" thing, nothing to do with build cost - just like automatic transmissions where Europeans often pay a premium for auto but Americans pay a premium for manual. For diesels, the initial price gap is reducing as diesels become an ever-bigger % of new car sales

Actually its not the injectors for one cost much more to produce for a diesel, the difference in price between petrol and diesel cars is a true reflection of production costs.

No car prices are directly related to production cost - because of the huge cost of R&D, safety testing, overheads and advertising.

But that's no different to many other products where market forces determine prices, not production costs - in fact the whole concept of "cost+" pricing disappeared when the Soviet Union disbanded but Western countries had abandoned it long before.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 14:07
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - Happy Blue!

Can't say I have noticed any significant increase in servicing costs between my diesel S-Max and my former petrol Subaru. Certainly nothing that would negate the economy advantage.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 14:08
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - craig-pd130

But this does not include the extra service costs or the difference in initial cost if the servicing was done properly it would take out most of this saving..

My example was specifically looking at company car ownership and how the tax regime currently favours diesels -- most co. car owners don't pay for servicing out of their own pocket.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 14:36
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - nortones2

The AA report ignores the largest cost: depreciation. It might be that some diesels would cost more per mile, but without the full facts, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is not a helpful report. I have no axe to grind: I no longer drive a diesel because I want to avoid DPF problems for the shorter runs we now do.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 15:41
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - skidpan

I have posted before that my personal experience proves that the advice sometimes given by so called experts is total nonsense. Now that I have sold the car I have often written about I can give you the final figures.

Bought a new BMW 118D (diesel) in March 2008. It cost £300 more than a 118i (petrol) at the time (BMW list figures). We did 37200 miles in it in the 5 years, well below the accepted break even figure needed.

All the figures below are based on petrol @£1.319 and diesel @1.359 per litre (todays cost at the filling station 200 yards from home).

In our 118 D 37200 miles at 48mpg (from my fuel log) = £4788

37200 miles ina 118i @ 35mpg (figure I have regulary seen on forums for a 118i) = £6373.

Our saving in fuel was therefore £1585.

Although the car cost £300 more than a 118i according to Parkers it was worth approx £635 more last weekend thus we made another saving of £335.

Taxed the car 5 times whilst we owned it saving approx £100 each time, another £500 saved.

Servicing cost exactly the same, had no problems with the car at all thus assuming that a 118i performed the same no cost difference.

Total savings were therefore £2420, not an insignificant amount.

Must also say that the 118i was a pretty rubbish drive compared to the 118D thus even if it had cost a little more to run it would have been acceptable.

Our use has changed and cars have moved on, new car is a petrol turbo since the equivalent diesel from the same range was £2000 more. Both petrol and diesel are in the £30 RFL bracket and allthough the petrol uses more fuel my calculations suggest it would take about 15 years to get the £2000 difference back. No DPF worries now, buying a turbo diesel this time would have been madness.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 16:41
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - unthrottled

"...According to Department for Transport statistics, the average fuel consumption of a new petrol car is 46.6 miles per gallon (10.25 miles per litre), compared to an average of 54.5 mpg (11.99 mpl) for a new diesel car...."


Right, so this is article is based upon an arithmetic average of the NEDC fuel economy figures for new cars. A more meaningful analysis would be derived from the actual fuel economy of the nationwide fleet of vehicles. Lazy journalism at its worst.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 19:23
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - Trilogy

My Octavia TDi cost no more, perrhaps even less to service, than a petrol car over the 130,000 miles I owned it. IMO Diesel is cheaper to run.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 19:52
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - dieseldogg

Seeing as any petrol equivalent of our TDI Galaxy would have been lucky to manage 25mpg, but the 1.9 TDI achieved a genuine 45 MPG.

Over 250 thou miles, thats 10,000 gall at say £6.00 = £60,000.

diesel assume 50mpg and deduct 10% is £30,000 +10% =£33,000

Saving of £27,000, minimum on rounded figs.

No extra servicing costs that I was aware of.

Blinking car only cost £18,500.00.

We currently do about 17,000 a year.

I would use 35MPG for petrol against 50MPG for diesel.

Still a "no brainer" to me.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 21 Jun 2013 19:53
100K miles needed to benefit from diesel - Ordovices

Once again a survey that assumes car buying and owning is all about money.

My Mother in Law would probably save money if she got rid of her car and took cabs everywhere, as could other low mileage users. I could "save" money according to this survey if I switched to petrol, but I like driving diesels, and yes I have tried the new Ford and VAG blown petrols and didn't like them.

If car buying was all about the cost, we would all, no doubt, end up driving Dacias (but I think that's what HJ may have in mind).

Reply | Report as offensive | Link