The cost of runing a Diesel.

[dave_s13]

Fire99 said:

Gaz. said:

Likewise, would happily have one of those if I needed a bigger car

Don't know if you've driven one but the 156 isn't that big. I was surprised just how diddy the load space was in the sporthatch. I'd still forgive it though. Very Very pretty!

My old car



2.4JTD 175bhp.

The engine was great, genuinely rapid. The rest of the car.......dog$hit.

[Nick1point9]

Fastdruid said:

So not comparing anything near like with like then.

I didn't say I was. I simply said I'm saving circa £2k a year by having a diesel.

And to be honest, when i do find a country road, it's more fun. No more worrying about how much I can thrash my car before its a waste of fuel (about 10mpg when thrashing the Audi was a waste). Just turn the radio up and you can't hear the difference, and absolute speed isn't important, it's about being close to the limits of the car.

For all the people who say they like to rev a car, why does it matter what revs you are doing? The redline in my diesel golf is at a similar speed in each gear as it was in my A3, and if the power comes in a lot lower then what does it matter if you change up at lower revs.

The whole argument of "runs out of puff at 4k" is just rubbish. Surprisingly enough, manufacturers know what an engine's power band looks like, so they gear it accordingly.

[Fire99]

dave_s13 said:

My old car



2.4JTD 175bhp.

The engine was great, genuinely rapid. The rest of the car.......dog$hit.

In my finest 'Italian Job' accent... "Pre'tty caar!!"

They felt just that bit too fragile to rely on as a daily hack, so I passed

[stargazer30]

martin mrt said:

I think it's you sir that needs the re education, there are many diesel cars available now that can match and surpass other "performance" orientated vehicles.

Thats really not true on a like for like bases is it, and if your not comparing like for like its a BS argument. Okay so you can build a performance car that uses a diesel engine but what I'm struggling with is why would you want to. If you built two identical cars, stuck a turbo diesel and matched gear box in one and a turbo petrol (same displacement) with matched gear box for the higher revs in the other the petrol would trounce it. I mean if I'm wrong please correct me but I don't think I am. Diesel fuel and engines are a compromise to aid fuel economy, thats all. Performance cars are not about economy so theres no point IMO.

[Panda76]

Nick1point9 said:

The whole argument of "runs out of puff at 4k" is just rubbish. Surprisingly enough, manufacturers know what an engine's power band looks like, so they gear it accordingly.

Quite.BMW have geared the diesels to be quite linear and deliver through the rev range rather than oomph all at the bottom to mid.
It does start to tail off though at just over 4.5k but you will have a fair rate of speed showing on the speedo when you select the next gear.
I have on occasion hit the limiter in second.Not paying attention.

[supersingle]

GC8 said:

supersingle said:

GC8 said:

Any diesel engine can run on its own oil, it doesnt have anything to do with being turbocharged or direct injection.

The only way a naturally aspirated diesel will runaway is if it's overfilled with engine oil. Avoid that and you should be ok.

I've had two and neither were over-filled. I was at uni and both were well worn - the first was a Golf Mk1 1,600 and the second a 2,000 Nissan.

Yeah, thinking about it I'm sure you're right. If the bores or valve guides are really worn I can see how a diesel might run on its own oil. Still more likely to get a runaway in a turbo diesel.

There's something good about old, naturally aspirated, mechanical injection diesels. They might not be fast but they sure are reliable!

[Vladimir]

stargazer30 said:

Thats really not true on a like for like bases is it, and if your not comparing like for like its a BS argument. Okay so you can build a performance car that uses a diesel engine but what I'm struggling with is why would you want to. If you built two identical cars, stuck a turbo diesel and matched gear box in one and a turbo petrol (same displacement) with matched gear box for the higher revs in the other the petrol would trounce it. I mean if I'm wrong please correct me but I don't think I am. Diesel fuel and engines are a compromise to aid fuel economy, thats all. Performance cars are not about economy so theres no point IMO.

Sigh. I had the choice - a GENUINE choice of a BMW 335i or a BMW 335d. Both very similar bhp, weight, both 3.0, both bi-turbo. I CHOSE the 335d not because of economy but because I preferred how the 335d drives. No I'm not some lazy arced fat rep, I just like easily accessible power and while mpg doesn't worry me, it does increase range when good. I can do over 400 miles on a tank. So my 406 mile trip to N Wales from Cornwall was done with one stop for a pi55 and some coffee. The 335i would have done about 300. Once there, having driven over 300 miles in total comfort, I got onto a major section of the Evo triangle and car was an absolute blast. I had a hugely fun tussle with a Z3 3.0i (my car was quicker) - all friendly with waves, etc, and arrived grinning inanely.

I grew up with a complete petrol head dad, was a complete car geek aged about 5, did IAM stuff as soon as I could, got cop trained to make sure I could drive vaguely well, have driven some serious kit - so you can't question my petrol head credentials (but you will).

MANY diesels are poor - in fact most are. Four pot single turbo diesels are pretty much all horrible. And that's what most judge ALL diesels on.

But then you drive an MR2 - a fine car in many ways but desperately in need of the 190vvti engine. And with NO storage space (I've driven 100s of miles in both the semi auto and the manual version), it doesn't suit many people. So come on, change the record - it's the kind of mindless drivel spouted by too many narrow minded PHers.

If any die hard PHer is down here (Cornwall) and isn't a serial killer, I'll take them to some superb roads and show them what a 335d (on non run flats) can do. I've already converted a few die hard petrol heads, one of which now has a 335d too.

Edited by Vladimir on Monday 5th March 20:27

[martin mrt]

stargazer30 said:

martin mrt said:

I think it's you sir that needs the re education, there are many diesel cars available now that can match and surpass other "performance" orientated vehicles.

Thats really not true on a like for like bases is it, and if your not comparing like for like its a BS argument. Okay so you can build a performance car that uses a diesel engine but what I'm struggling with is why would you want to. If you built two identical cars, stuck a turbo diesel and matched gear box in one and a turbo petrol (same displacement) with matched gear box for the higher revs in the other the petrol would trounce it. I mean if I'm wrong please correct me but I don't think I am. Diesel fuel and engines are a compromise to aid fuel economy, thats all. Performance cars are not about economy so theres no point IMO.

Now we are comparing like for like, is this to make your original unjustified quote justifiable?

[GC8]

supersingle said:

GC8 said:

supersingle said:

GC8 said:

Any diesel engine can run on its own oil, it doesnt have anything to do with being turbocharged or direct injection.

The only way a naturally aspirated diesel will runaway is if it's overfilled with engine oil. Avoid that and you should be ok.

I've had two and neither were over-filled. I was at uni and both were well worn - the first was a Golf Mk1 1,600 and the second a 2,000 Nissan.

Yeah, thinking about it I'm sure you're right. If the bores or valve guides are really worn I can see how a diesel might run on its own oil. Still more likely to get a runaway in a turbo diesel.

There's something good about old, naturally aspirated, mechanical injection diesels. They might not be fast but they sure are reliable!

Yes, youve overlooked the old-school way.

It hadnt occured to me either, that newer and fresher TDIs would suffer from the same outcome, due to an alternative oil supply.

[Fastdruid]

Nick1point9 said:

Fastdruid said:

So not comparing anything near like with like then.

I didn't say I was. I simply said I'm saving circa £2k a year by having a
diesel

If I was doing 10-12k/year in it I could save 1.5-2k/year by changing our 2.3t petrol...to a smaller lighter petrol!

[stargazer30]

martin mrt said:

stargazer30 said:

martin mrt said:

I think it's you sir that needs the re education, there are many diesel cars available now that can match and surpass other "performance" orientated vehicles.

Thats really not true on a like for like bases is it, and if your not comparing like for like its a BS argument. Okay so you can build a performance car that uses a diesel engine but what I'm struggling with is why would you want to. If you built two identical cars, stuck a turbo diesel and matched gear box in one and a turbo petrol (same displacement) with matched gear box for the higher revs in the other the petrol would trounce it. I mean if I'm wrong please correct me but I don't think I am. Diesel fuel and engines are a compromise to aid fuel economy, thats all. Performance cars are not about economy so theres no point IMO.

Now we are comparing like for like, is this to make your original unjustified quote justifiable?

Nah I just can help taking the pee out the oil burner brigade, the tractor/performance and diesel in the same sentence was tongue in cheek. Sure you can have a performance diesel as a compromise between performance vs economy. If I did mega mileage I'd probably turn traitor too. Hmmm then again......

[F i F]

As always with this argument there is no single answer, it all depends on needs and circumstances. Just like that black / white spectrum that was posted as a joke, one end the obvious answer has been diesel, and at the other end petrol, and it's been that way for years.

Ignoring specific issues like sports and lugging massive loads but just considering normal runabout family vehicles the answer = petrol end of the spectrum has been at the smaller engine / smaller vehicle / lower mileage end. However in line with what has been written in the OP I do believe the area where petrol is the answer is shifting.

I have both diesel and petrol on the drive but when the diesel goes it's very unlikey to be replaced with another one. Part oof the reason is that my needs have changed.

Nevertheless I often accuse Honest John of spouting soundbite ballocks, but I do think he is right on this one. Get away from dual mass flywheels, particulate filters, cam belts and turbos, then you will have avoided 4 of the main things that can sometimes, but not always, cause major heartache in that 3-6 year old period in a car's life.

One other observation, out of all the petrol and diesel vehicles I've owned, some were dogs, some were bullet proof, but there was only one make where the dealers really added to the pain, and they were all Fords. Seems to be a common issue in this thread.

[Vladimir]

stargazer30 said:

Nah I just can help taking the pee out the oil burner brigade, the tractor/performance and diesel in the same sentence was tongue in cheek. Sure you can have a performance diesel as a compromise between performance vs economy. If I did mega mileage I'd probably turn traitor too. Hmmm then again......

But you have a two seater sports car so therefore clearly have no kids and carry no luggage - ever. If I was the same, I'd also get a sports car and diesels do NOT suit them - Merc and Audi should have their butts kicked for bringing out a diesel TT and SLK. A sports car is about lightness, sound, responsiveness.

But what I just cannot get and may never understand - to me liking performance cars is about liking cars that go quickly, brake quickly, corner quickly. This is what a decent diesel car does. This is also what a decent petrol car does too.
There are cr4p diesels (many) and cr4p petrols too. I don't feel the need to grab onto every petrol car thread that I don't like and bang on and on and on about how gutless they are, how unreliable some have been, how poor most 4 pot petrols sound , etc, etc, etc - I have room to like both.

As oil runs scarce, something else will have to replace our current fuel - will PHers still moan and bleat about the next alternative? Will hydrogen engines not be "responsive enough?" WIll electric cars with mega torque be hated by old geeks with an MX5?

We run two diesels - both are genuinely fun, both were chosen to help enjoy our lives - with two young kids and a dog. Neither has economy in mind, in fact neither is very good on fuel at all. We chose them (my wife and I) and are both petrol heads through and through.

[stargazer30]

F i F said:

One other observation, out of all the petrol and diesel vehicles I've owned, some were dogs, some were bullet proof, but there was only one make where the dealers really added to the pain, and they were all Fords. Seems to be a common issue in this thread.

+1 I've had countless fords over the years and the ford dealers (I can't name and shame) were really bad. Brand new car, 1000 mile courtesy check they left the oil cap off causing the oil to spill out, nearly dry before I realised. Tracking done and set so far out brand new tyres destroyed in 400 miles and some seriously iffy handling in the wet. Rude staff when complaining, I could go on. Its ironic I have a 7 year old toyota now which is worth nothing in comparison and the guys at my local toyota dealer are spot on, can't fault them.

[Nick1point9]

stargazer30 said:

F i F said:

One other observation, out of all the petrol and diesel vehicles I've owned, some were dogs, some were bullet proof, but there was only one make where the dealers really added to the pain, and they were all Fords. Seems to be a common issue in this thread.

+1 I've had countless fords over the years and the ford dealers (I can't name and shame) were really bad. Brand new car, 1000 mile courtesy check they left the oil cap off causing the oil to spill out, nearly dry before I realised. Tracking done and set so far out brand new tyres destroyed in 400 miles and some seriously iffy handling in the wet. Rude staff when complaining, I could go on. Its ironic I have a 7 year old toyota now which is worth nothing in comparison and the guys at my local toyota dealer are spot on, can't fault them.

Have to say I agree, my only experience with a ford dealership is that my Mum had a 1.4 tdci ford fusion that spent months in and out of the dealer having things changed. each thing would catagorically, certainly solve the problem, but none did. They were stabbing in the dark at a variety of solutions clearly without any real though otherwise they would have solved it by the third or fourth visit. She traded it in eventually because it was nearing the end of the warranty.

Otherwise, as a family we have bought 5 or 6 fords from dealers (mostly ex demo circa 6 months old), and then steered well clear of the dealership.

[Vladimir]

I can challenge Ford's poor customer service with Vauxhalls. I'll spare the details but needless to say that despite our old Vx being a fairly good car, I will never ever buy one again, even if they bring out a 500bhp, RWD estate with 100g/km and 100mpg, the best chassis ever made for £10k. I was actually very close to decking the dealer principal.

[edward1]

I have nothing against diesels and have just spent 4 years with a 156 JTD 16v. I also drive a number of diesels as company hire cars. Some are terrible and have an all or nothing approach to power delivery. With these just as it gets interesting you run out of revs. Others can either by twin turbos or variable vane can have a much more linear power deliver making them easy to drive and live with. Due to ending up driving in the power band for more of the time, they can feel quite quick. That is until you want a bit more and realise you've already used the best bit.

In terms of running costs it isn't so much the day to day fuel costs that are the issue. From experience I would see around 45mpg from a 150bhp oil burner about 10mpg more than the same hp petrol. However I have had a number of fairly std 2.0 16v petrol cars go way past 100k on the original clutch and with minimal mechanical issues.

I believe the Alfa JTD engine itself to be pretty good, however as with pretty much all modern diesels it had a DMF making a clutch change near enough £1000. It seems normal to expect a clutch to last between 50-80k. EGR's tend to cause problems. On some engines fuel pump, injectors etc are all listed on forums as know problems. Newer diesels have the dreaded DPF, if you aren't doing the right type of driving these lead to problems.

All this uncertainty and the fact that I don't believe the 12-15k I do would keep a DPF clean has resulted in me going back to petrol. It is fine as other posters have said if it is a new car under warranty or a company lease car there is no reason not to go diesel. If you are someone who buys a 3-5 year old car with 50-80k on the clock a diesel suddenly looks a scary proposition.

[stargazer30]

Vladimir said:

stargazer30 said:

Nah I just can help taking the pee out the oil burner brigade, the tractor/performance and diesel in the same sentence was tongue in cheek. Sure you can have a performance diesel as a compromise between performance vs economy. If I did mega mileage I'd probably turn traitor too. Hmmm then again......

But you have a two seater sports car so therefore clearly have no kids and carry no luggage - ever. If I was the same, I'd also get a sports car and diesels do NOT suit them - Merc and Audi should have their butts kicked for bringing out a diesel TT and SLK. A sports car is about lightness, sound, responsiveness.

No I have 3 kids and a very understanding missus! Our other car is a 1.8 petrol civic. I did test drive the 2.2 civic diesel version but I prefer the petrol as does the missus.

[frosted]

edward1 said:

I have nothing against diesels and have just spent 4 years with a 156 JTD 16v. I also drive a number of diesels as company hire cars. Some are terrible and have an all or nothing approach to power delivery. With these just as it gets interesting you run out of revs. Others can either by twin turbos or variable vane can have a much more linear power deliver making them easy to drive and live with. Due to ending up driving in the power band for more of the time, they can feel quite quick. That is until you want a bit more and realise you've already used the best bit.

In terms of running costs it isn't so much the day to day fuel costs that are the issue. From experience I would see around 45mpg from a 150bhp oil burner about 10mpg more than the same hp petrol. However I have had a number of fairly std 2.0 16v petrol cars go way past 100k on the original clutch and with minimal mechanical issues.

I believe the Alfa JTD engine itself to be pretty good, however as with pretty much all modern diesels it had a DMF making a clutch change near enough £1000. It seems normal to expect a clutch to last between 50-80k. EGR's tend to cause problems. On some engines fuel pump, injectors etc are all listed on forums as know problems. Newer diesels have the dreaded DPF, if you aren't doing the right type of driving these lead to problems.

All this uncertainty and the fact that I don't believe the 12-15k I do would keep a DPF clean has resulted in me going back to petrol. It is fine as other posters have said if it is a new car under warranty or a company lease car there is no reason not to go diesel. If you are someone who buys a 3-5 year old car with 50-80k on the clock a diesel suddenly looks a scary proposition.

My 08 vw passat is on 100k and on original DMF ,DPF and till a month ago original injectors, car lives in london with short journeys only . Vw did tell me they will change the injectors for free and I took em up on that offer .

[sider]

As it's been said - i think it comes down to personal preference.

If i had the choice between paying £18k for a diesel Mondeo or £18k for a same-spec petrol Mondeo, I'd definately go for the diesel.

Sounds like others on here wouldn't and each to their own.

The only thing that would get me in a petrol car, particularly of that size was if, as commonly is the case, the petrol car was £15k against the diesel's £17-18k.

A diesel does everything i need it to at the moment and the diesel Insignia i had IMHO was more fun that the petrol Insignia - the petrol was absolutely gutless and was no fun to drive - painfully slow. Not that the diesel was great fun mind - it just went when i asked it to and did so using far less fuel that it's petrol powered equivalent.