|
Like you Roly, I prefer diesel although I like the current 2.0 litre Honda a lot. It amuses me though how often people speak of the years and years to recoup extra cost of a diesel, but still ignore the lower resale value of a petrol engined car, and the greater depreciation loss if you are buying new or nearly. I only bought the petrol Civic when I did (2003) because the VW offerings were uninspiring (Mk IV Golf etc) and Honda didn't yet have their own 2.2 diesel to offer. But I have to admit its a very good engine.
|
Hi All!
Did some calculations, and based on Petrol costing £1 and Diesel costing £1.10, and me doing 15k miles a years, it would take 9 years to 'Pay Back' the extra £2k I would have to spend. Only a difference of about £235 a year in petrol costs!
|
But how much more would your diesel car be worth at the end? Whats the price differential for servicing?
Its not all purely down to mpg.
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
Buying a car for most of us is a long term thing, in 12 months time you could be commuting and doing 2-3 time the mileage you are now.
Since my last (and first) new buying experience I've changed jobs and moved house......
|
|
|
|
I'd make it £340pa based on 15k, and a difference of 5p per litre and 10 mpg between the two fuels, but the point is valid.
I do 20-25k pa and it's a bit more clear cut.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
Just try both and buy what appeals to you. If it's a Honda you go for you are unlikely to be disappointed either way.
Remember, contrary to some opinions, you don't have to 'rev the nuts off' a decent petrol engine for excellent, flexible, performance and the characteristics of a diesel engine tend to flatter mediocre driving ability.
|
and the characteristics of a diesel engine tend to flatter mediocre driving ability.
I can't see how that can be true when the useable rev range of even the best diesel is 2,000 RPM short of the even the carppiest petrol. Swapping from one engine to the other requires adjustment whichever way you do it.
Mediocre drivers used to petrol engines will constantly run a diesel engine into its limiter and whine incessantly about the fact it won't pull over 4,000 RPM. I have seen this countless times.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
I've never bought the argument about useable rev range. It can't be true, unless you get some idiot driving to the numbers on the rev counter.
Look at it in terms of % of maximum revs. I'd bet that relabelled as % on the rev counter you'd find the two pretty similar, with the diesel pulling harder at lower % of max revs, and the petrol at higher % of max.
A diesel will have different ratios to reflect this, based around the available range and not around absolute rpm.
Look at it this way. Someone on here ages ago was arguing that diesel was carp - they wanted to challenge two cars to a drag from 4k rpm, pointing out that the diesel would instantly hit the limiter. Idiotic comparison. Say 4k is 60% max, so start the diesel from 2.5k rpm say. Don't know about all diesels, but mine is just starting to pull like a train all the way to 85 mph from there in 3rd.
Also, I know very few 'carp' drivers who go above 4k rpm even on petrols.
|
Some posts above are saying that there is only a 10 mpg difference between diesel and petrol. Not sure I agree that this is the case for all cars. For instance I run a 110 TDI Passat which, if driven down the motorways at 70mph will return 60mpg. A similar journey with a petrol engine is likely to return 40mpg. So that makes a difference of 20 mpg...... On average over the past 90k miles I've got 53mpg with a 'pressing on' driving style. In a petrol engine, I would presume 33mpg.
On smaller cars I would agree that the differences are smaller - although what about the C2 HDI or Panda Multijet against their petrol equivalents?
Bost
|
I agree with Bostin
My comparison with petrol cars ... mainly round town driving
106 diesel averages 53mpg
106 1.1 petrol.. averages 38mpg.
madf
|
|
|
No, I wouldn't agree either, maybe between the worst diesels and best petrols. Most large diesels are capable of 50 mpg+ as opposed to about 35 mpg for petrol, although it depends a lot on your driving style. If you thrash a diesel you will get a poor consumption, but driven moderately you will get a worthwhile improvement over petrol. Driven gently, even better, my Citroen XM estate which weighs over a ton and a half, will return in excess of 50 mpg on our frequent trips to the north of Scotland, and that's an old IDI engine!
Some years ago I had a CX td Safari in which I covered over 150k miles, and the saving in fuel costs over the petrol equivalent was mare than I paid for the car!
Peter.N.
|
|
I cannot agree with the often quoted 20-30000 mile break even for diesel over petrol. The Honda in question will certainly retail at least £1K more after 3yrs if its a diesel. Why do most diesel cars cost more second hand? reason they are more desirable, checkout the diesel BMWs.
|
If you're gonna use the car for towing, then diesel it has to be. My mate tows a big caravan, with car full of kids, with a Laguna diesel - and he can still out-accelerate some (unloaded) cars.
His mate has the same caravan and tows with a 3 lire petrol Jag - Laguna overtakes him easily. Jag gets 18 mpg towing, Laguna gets 35mpg.
|
My experience is that as soon as you factor a lot of cold starts into it, petrol is below stated MPG figures while diesel can still meet or exceed them.
Their ought to be a 20 cold starts and half mile runs built into the tests, I think that would really highlight diesel economy.
Edited by oilrag on 11/12/2007 at 09:28
|
Tried to edit (but ran out of time)"their" to `there`and add 20 cold starts over `10 hours or so at 5c`
I have a feeling that stated petrol figures are more malleable in official `testing`.
Edited by oilrag on 11/12/2007 at 09:36
|
grumpyscot makes a good point with his towing example. Diesels "lug" much better thanks to all that torque, and as cars have got heavier and heavier, I believe this has shifted the advantage diesel's way.
Yes diesel engines have come a long way in terms of power and refinement, but the job that a car engine has to do has changed. The kerbweight of a typical family saloon has swelled from 1100 (or so) kg to 1500 (or so) kg in the last 20 years. To move that off from rest smartly, torque becomes critical. Diesels have it, petrols don't.
Petrols are still the choice where fuel economy doesn't matter and you can increase cc or use forced induction, but in a "sensible" family car and for a given power output, diesels are simply better suited to heavy modern cars.
In my humble opinion of course. :-)
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
|
I cannot agree with the often quoted 20-30000 mile break even for diesel over petrol. The Honda in question will certainly retail at least £1K more after 3yrs if its a diesel. Why do most diesel cars cost more second hand? reason they are more desirable.
YES - need to keep the px value in the equation.
My experience of typical car salesmen is this.
No sir, why buy a diesel if you're doing less than 20 - 25 - 30K a year. You'll never get your money back. (which really means "please, please, please let me sell you a petrol. Everybody is wanting to buy diesels and I can't shift petrol stock")
So you fall for it, buy a petrol, and three years later go back to px it. Of course, original salesman has moved on. Now, when you start to talk px values, you get
"I'm sorry sir, we can't give you what you're asking. It's a petrol, and nobody wants them. Now, if it was a diesel, I could give you a far better price. We can sell as many good used diesels as we can lay our hands on"
|
Unless of course you have a diesel to trade in in which case it's
"I'm sorry sir, we can't give you what you're asking. It's
*insert colour here*
*insert model spec here*
*insert age here*
*insert day of the week here*
and nobody wants them."
|
|
Also when i've driven petrol cars in stop start traffic the car seems to keep lurching/kangarooing when doing about 5mph, left foots doing the river dance, but you don't get this with a diesel, in fact my 2.0dti vectra c moves from standstill without touching the throttle.
|
Feel the need to add my input here.
Have owned my Clioe Diesel DCi 65 for some 5 yrs now. It has been very economical (twice monthly fill ups), cheap to tax (£35 per year) and it drives very well.
I use it to commute to work very day and touch wood, no major faults, apart from computer going awall regarding injectors.
I service it regularly and change the oil every 9 - 10k. I also tow a trailor filled with logs virtually every weekend in the winter. It pulls like a dream, no issues with torque at all.
If i had a petrol, it would be expensive to keep filling the thing up, tax would be higher. Servicing would be the only cheaper item.
I drive 15k a year and am also tight fisted so this car does me fine!!!
I don't think I will ever buy a petrol again.
I like a small diesel in a small car!
|
Unless of course you have a diesel to trade in in which case it's "I'm sorry sir we can't give you what you're asking. It's *insert colour here*, etc, etc, etc.
AND everyone is afraid to buy a used CR diesel these days, sir. worried about mis-fueling, you know. Sorry sir, we just can't shift them." ;-)
|
|
On a petrol car you need to replace the exhaust every 2-3 years, on a diesel it lasts much longer normally because of the less corrosive properties of the exhaust gases.
|
On a petrol car you need to replace the exhaust every 2-3 years
Er no, really you don't.
|
On a petrol car you need to replace the exhaust every 2-3 years
Depends on the car. A good quality factory exhaust will last well. My last Legacy did 135K and 6 years when sold still on the same exhaust and I live right next to the sea.
|
|
My 1.3 Fiesta did nearly 10 years with only a backbox needing replacement. This was after a lifetime of short journeys (Previous owners elderly, 24,000 miles in 7 years!) until halfway through my 3 year ownership when I started working 15 - 20 miles from home.
|
I would certainly reccommend a diesel to anyone who does more than 20k per annum, as obviously they are the ones who will benefit more financially by driving a diesel as opposed to a petrol. For people who drive 5-10k per year, it would make little difference whether a car was petrol or diesel.
I do approx 22-25k per year and as such diesel certainly does it for me, mainly due to the fuel economy (42-47mpg generally), but I also enjoy the low down torque and the power delivery over a sensible rev range.
It is true to say that diesel cars have certainly gained popularity over the last 5-10 years, not only because of their fuel saving nature, but also the fact that diesel engines have become almost as refined as their petrol counterparts with the introduction of common rail diesel engines back in the late 90's.
Turn the clock back 10-12 years ago, the only decent mainstream diesels were the PSA 1.7,1.9, 2.1TD's. At such time, most diesels were regarded as being noisy and slow, with the exception of the Peugeot/Citroen units. I still find the 1.9TD XUD engine in my 1994 306 fairly refined, even by today's standards.
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
