Interesting thought for you all
if you have a diesel that is doing 50mpg over 4000 miles.
this will cost you £320 thats when diesel is at 87.9ppl
for a petrol that does 30mpg at 83.9ppl
its £508.80
only an extra £190 a month.
if you do 4000miles a month.
mmm, makes me think, i was basing my calcs on 81.9 ppl for diesel a year and 4 months ago. which was 81.9 so 4000 miles in a diesel doing 50mpg was only costing £295.00.
so in a year its costing me an extra £25 a month for fuel.
(well not me, my company.)
also over a year this is £2280.
if you can buy a petrol for £2K cheaper than a diesel, whats the point ??????????????????????????
and many people dont do 45K miles a year.
|
|
Diesels often have better performance and driveability?
|
|
|
You certainly have to do your sums carefully when deciding which is the most cost effective, It becomes even more tricky if you are in a possition of deciding in a petrol or diesel for a company car as choosing a diesel is not necessary financialy the best option.To make maters worse it seems diesel prices are creeping up away from the price of petrol.
rustbucket (the original)
|
|
This chestnut pops up every couple of months. If you can't make a choice to save money, then make it to save oil instead. This idea doesn't seem popular.
|
after driving diesels for 8 years, then going back to petrol.
i know which one one i prefer....
|
|
|
On some cars the difference is huge - ie Merc C180K (petrol) or C220 (diesel) - very similar performance. petrol does 32MPG, Diesel does 39MPG but the diesel costs £3000! more. Both MPG figures are for auto - manual versions are just 5MPG apart.
One of the arguments is that the diesels hold their price better, but I don't know why that would be - most private users do small mileages so the economy advantage is lost. And diesels have usually done high mileages, which private buyers steer away from.
You also have to be careful as some diesels need more frequent servicing.
Having said diesels usually do high mileages, I'm constantly amazed by the 2-3 yr old used diesels (esp Mercs & BMW's) which have done low mileage - seems a pointless initial choice?
|
|
|
|
|
Whilst the initial cost may be important (especially if you haven't got the extra £2k!), what will be the depreciation loss over the year for the petrol vs. the diesel (probably less for the diesel)?
Also, if it's a company car, the BIK in your example will be way less for the diesel.
At 4k miles per month, the diesel will be more relaxing and less stressful to drive; you'll be spending far less time at filling stations too!
JohnM
|
Also, if it's a company car, the BIK in your example will be way less for the diesel.
I think you'll find the sums are closer than you think - many petrol cars now have good CO2 values and the higher list price of the diesels means the BIK values come out close to even.
|
What Car? magazine gives the running cost of a 2 litre petrol Focus over 3 years 36000 miles as 40.7 pence per mile including depreciation. The figure for the 2 litre TDCi equivalent is 41.1 pence per mile. And the price of the diesel is exactly £1000 higher than the petrol. I'm a confirmed petrolhead.
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
The long term costs of Diesel V Petrol are changing.
EG if you compare a VW Golf petrol 115 bhp to a VW golf Diesel 103 bhp you will save about £240/year using diesel when doing 15000 miles/year. so it would take about 4 years to recoup the costs.
HOWEVER:- When the Diesel needs new PD injectors after 80k you will have to wave goodbye to a substantial amount of cash (1k+?)
If you dont change them the engine will worn out at 150k (egg shaped bores). Some diesels will need particulate filters replacing every couple of years (£400-£500). Come service time the PD engines require a special gold plated oil(and very regular topping up with the same). It has been reported in the past that the cost of this oil alone can cancel out the fuel savings.
The longevity of diesel engines V petrol engines is now a different issue. I have some friends who do horendous commutes who always use petrol Audis (driving then to in excess of 300k). How many VW TDI's last that long? not many I suspect.
|
I think the real benefits in diesel over petrol lie with heavier cars with poorer aerodynamics (larger frontal area or high drag coefficient). I was going to buy a petrol 2.3 litre Ford Galaxy but was told by friends that the real world fuel consumption was in the mid-20 mpgs. The 1.9 l TDi easily gave fuel economy in the high 30s/early 40s.
Similarly, the benefits of bucket loads of torque are far more evident in van-like vehicles like SUVs and MPVs.
No-one seems to talk about LPG anymore despite fuel prices reaching fuel-crisis levels again. I converted an old Primera to LPG just before the great fuel blockade. Despite concerns that the fuel duty on LPG could rocket if it became popular, prices still seem to be at the 37 p/litre mark. You lose a little in fuel economy as LPG is less dense but I would guess that most 2 litre petrol cars running on LPG would be cheaper to run than their diesel counterparts, particularly at high motorway cruising speeds or with heavy footed drivers.
|
|
Having driven diesel for the last 20 years it is nice (and lazy) to pick any gear as long as the revs are 1000+ and accelerate away.
|
Exactly, Cymrog.... There is no doubt that my 2.5 TDI Audi (163 bhp), despite being an automatic, feels much more lively than SWMBO's manual Civic 2.0 type S (158 bhp): that's because the Audi has 258 lb/ft of torque as opposed to 132. Even the VAG 1.9 TDI (115 or 130 bhp) has 210 lb/ft.
It depends which end of the rev range you want your power, which comes down to the sort of driver you are. Finance is only one of the factors in making the petrol/diesel choice.
The Civic is a good car, but I think Honda could be on to a winner if they put their 2.2 diesel engine in the next Civic, which I believe they will.
|
|
A general thought to add to that - medium car, big engine is a fine combination, and a very nice indulgence now that the children have grown up. Backroomers may be able to think of other examples apart from our Audi and Honda.
|
|
|
|
I agree Avant: the Type S engine we have in our Civic is very good, smooth and quiet at moderate engine speeds, but it only produces maximum torque approaching 5000 rpm, with real power from then, up to its rev limit at 6800. Admittedly it gets really brisk at those revs, but its response is very modest at lower revs. As for economy, it only gives 35mpg, on a long run, and this must be one of the best petrol engines made. Thats a long way short of the 55-60 mpg, on mainly M-way runs, (600 miles in total) in the TDI Passat I had before the Honda.
|
|
|
|
So you're a wild Welsh person then.. couldn't resist the reply seeing the name. Croeso. I'm not such a wild Welsh person.
|
|
|
|
|
HOWEVER:- When the Diesel needs new PD injectors after 80k you will have to wave goodbye to a substantial amount of cash (1k+?)
This is wrong, I dont know where you got this info from.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that those who have elected for diesel have lost the economic argument, unless they are seriously high mileage motorists.
They therefore fall back on the torque, torque, torque argument as if it endows diesel with magic performance. It doesn't; it really doesn't, they run out of puff and don't rev.
If it really matters to you that you can accelerate from low speed without changing gear, then get an automatic.
|
|
|
I think you are over generalising here, as there is more to this argument than just fuel saving. The diesel/petrol price-gap on many new cars now has narrowed and in some cases gone. For example, Saab sold their 93 1.8 turbo for exactly the same price as the 2.2 turbo diesel variant.
Also, bear in mind that in the case of a company car, the 3 year residual value of the diesel version of almost any car is greater when under disposal, due to the longevity of diesel engines in general.#
Finally, there is there is the hidden factor of the enjoyment of driving a car with that nice mid-range grunt. When I get back in a petrol car now, unless it is at least 2.5L it seems puny to drive !
|
|
i think the person who stated that only vw/audi group petrol cars can achieve very high mileages has had his head in the sand for the last 15 yrs.its quite the opposite in fact the many diesel vw passats around here as taxis with starship mileages is unbelievable. PD injectors dont need to be replaced after 80 k maybe 280 k i dont know but my fathers pd passat tdi 115 now has 275,000 miles on it and it drives great no problems apart from a maf. These mileages arent unusual for a diesel but you dont see many petrol cars that make it that far!!!
|
Don't be too sure about that!
www.volvoclub.org.uk/highmileage/ov_section3.php>>
i think the person who stated that only vw/audi group petrolcars can achieve very high mileages has had his head in the sand for the last 15 yrs.its quite the opposite in fact the many diesel vw passats around here as taxis with starship mileages is unbelievable. PD injectors dont need to be replaced after 80 k maybe 280 k i dont know but my fathers pd passat tdi 115 now has 275,000 miles on it and it drives great no problems apart from a maf. These mileages arent unusual for a diesel but you dont see many petrol cars that make it that far!!!
|
|
Start comparing in gear performance e.g. 30-50, 50-70 etc i.e the type of acceleration you use every day and diesels are cheaper. The 2.0TDi unit only produces 140 PS, but has 320 Nm torque. To get this torque out of a petrol you need the 3.2 V6. In gear performance is almost the same for these two vehicles. The 2.0 TDi can be had for £19k ish, the V6 is about £22k. V6 does 18.8 mpg urban cycle, TDi 38.1 mpg (>twice as many miles per gallon). Diesel retains more value after 3 years than the V6, insurance is cheaper, as is road tax!>>
|
|
|
|
