RE: Diesel myths debunked

[ADM06]

StottyZr said:

ADM06 said:

Da fuq?! Cock. I won't waffle on about cars I have driven or not, but suffice to say where is the point in the diesel equivalent if it achieves 20mpg less than the manufacturers figure? The two cars are similar enough to make a fair comparison.
I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This st should be on watchdog.

Each and every new cars sits a standardised test. Same conditions, same speeds and distance. They use a certain amount of fuel to complete the test, this is then converted to Mpg. The fiesta sat the test and achieved 67mpg. Just because you couldn't get this on your route doesn't mean the manufacturer lied. Infact it'd be pretty hard for them to lie, as the car sat a standardised test. You have no idea what your talking about. Diesels in general, use less fuel than their petrol counterparts. This is a fact, not an arguement (with some anomlies)

I'm sorry but you say "route" you are implying this is just a little run about. I have driven the car 14k in three months, mostly motorway, and it is always the same. Colleagues also report it.
My mrs had a 1.4 petrol corsa for a few months, that would also do 45mpg with similar driving and was much closer to the manufacturers figure.

[BBL-Sean]

BBL-Sean said:

Devil2575 said:

I'm interested as to why in the US the diesel gets such poor economy? A 2.5l petrol only gets 7/9 mpg worse than a 2 litre diesel?

Maybe there's something else going on here?
On paper the US 2.5 gets worse than the EURO GTI, which isn't supprising. What is supprising is that the US Diesel model gets a lot worse mpg than the Euro diesel. Combined of 58 for the Euro model but in the US thats 30-42 US which is 36-50mpg UK? So a combined which will be around 42mpg?

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

According to the US VW site they only list the 2.5 as an engine option, no diesel.

http://www.vw.com/en/models/golf/trims-specs.html#...

Call me suspicious about the US EPA estimated milages but IIRC these were the ones that stated the latest BMW M3 did about 10 mpg and the Boss Mustang did 25 mpg...

Edited by Devil2575 on Friday 27th April 17:30

I am curious about that as well, but don't have an answer. I suspect it may be that the 'blend' of diesel used in the U.S. is different. I feel certain that is at least part of the answer.

I was told by Cosworth that their 250 bhp-spec Duratec available in the states is exactly the same spec engine as used in the Caterham CSR 260, but the difference is that when it is run on petrol, it produces ~10 more bhp than when it is run on gas.

Another possible contributing factor: BBC business article :roll eyes:

A quote from the article linked:
Bigger differences were seen with the Mini 1.6D Cooper, the Volkswagen Golf 1.6 TDI 105 Bluemotion and the Peugeot 3008 Hybrid4, which all promise to deliver between 70mpg and 75mpg, while the What Car? test figures ranged from 46mpg to 53mpg.

Edited by BBL-Sean on Saturday 28th April 17:21

[Andy ap]

sleep envy said:

Andy ap said:

Just took an A3 TDI s-line for a spin round the block to see if i can find any merit in Derv..... laaaaag. BOOST! and before you know it its all over.

That's more telling of your driving style than anything else to be honest. If you anticipate things slightly better and make sure you're in the right gear you won't have a problem.

That may be, but being used to driving a turbo petrol i know how to drive with boost. What i was reffering to was the 1.5k usable rev range compared to the 7 in a petrol. Diesels lump all theyre power down at once and thats it. U have to constantly stir the gears in a derv. Whereas a turbo petrol even will pull from allmost any revs.

[Patrick Bateman]

Andy ap said:

That may be, but being used to driving a turbo petrol i know how to drive with boost. What i was reffering to was the 1.5k usable rev range compared to the 7 in a petrol. Diesels lump all theyre power down at once and thats it. U have to constantly stir the gears in a derv. Whereas a turbo petrol even will pull from allmost any revs.

1.5k usable rev range?

Even the 2 litre diesel from the e46 is good for 2500rpm.

Edited by Patrick Bateman on Saturday 28th April 18:06

[jmorgan]

ADM06 said:

Here is a good point, and from my actual driving experience.
P reg 1.4 polo, 45mpg.
59 reg 1.4 diesel fiesta, 45mpg. Despite 67mpg claimed.
If a very average driver was looking to change his or her car on the promise of 67mpg they will have been royally conned and would have wasted their money on a new car with all the depreciation.

Diesels aren't getting better on fuel because prices are going up. It's the other way around. Manufacturers are promising more and more ridiculous mpg claims and the government is looking at this, and increasing the tax so they don't lose out. They genuinely think these cars will actually achieve the claimed figures, and that every driver will buy one. Wake up people, diesels aren't the solution to the problem they are the cause.

I am a bit peeved. I can only get 62. It is a 1.6 06. Maybe that is why.

[Fox-]

StottyZr said:

Each and every new cars sits a standardised test. Same conditions, same speeds and distance. They use a certain amount of fuel to complete the test, this is then converted to Mpg. The fiesta sat the test and achieved 67mpg. Just because you couldn't get this on your route doesn't mean the manufacturer lied. Infact it'd be pretty hard for them to lie, as the car sat a standardised test. You have no idea what your talking about. Diesels in general, use less fuel than their petrol counterparts. This is a fact, not an arguement (with some anomlies)

Nobody disputes that.

It's HOW MUCH less fuel that matters.

I spent yesterday driving a BMW X1 2.0d around town completely normally. It did 33mpg. To be honest 33mpg around town isn't THAT bad, but what it is, is absolutely miles away from anything ever quoted.

It's also not good enough for me to see the point.

[XitUp]

wigsworld said:

I don't think there's any evidence to say that human co2 output is contributing to so called climate change. I think the whole climate change thing is massive con, it's an industry. Lots of people are getting very rich from it. I'm not saying we shouldn't look after our planet but the whole climate change scaremongering thing is just wrong. I know politicians and other idiots say that the debate is over but there's just as many scientists that disagree with man made global warming as do agree with it. The only difference being that you never here from a scientist that disagrees with climate change unless it's to be mocked or called a 'denier' by morons like George Monibot. I wonder why this might be?

1. There is plenty of evidence.
2. There are not just as many scientists that disagree.

I do think that the popular focus on CO2 can often take attention away from other, equally important environmental issues.

Willy Nilly said:

I can't be bothered to wade through 11 pages of diesel v petrol.

But back on the topic of diesel cars and the USA. I'd say they are ideal for the type of driving that most people do in the US. Long distance at a steady speed is was diesels like.

People in America don't drive much more than people in Europe. This is a myth.
They also have towns and cities in America too. And, believe it or not, some roads with corners.

Devil2575 said:

The point I was making is that there is no reason why the US should not have the same diesel options as the UK. I'm sure given time and the market, the US will get the same spec Diesel Golfs as we have at a similar price point compared to the petrol models.

All things being equal there is no reason why the US would not move towards diesel like the UK has.

I wasn't moving the goal posts, I was simply discussing the subject as I saw it.

There are reasons. They have much stricter emissions limits. So to get a diesel to pass it will cost a lot more and get less mpg.

Fire99 said:

If I were the US (Ok, that is impossible ) I'd skip Diesel and go straight for cleaner tech like hydrogen technology etc. Diesel is a horrid substance.

And hydrogen is science fiction.

You are half right though, they skipped diesel and went for hybrids.

ADM06 said:

Yes but not by myself. Try driving in 5th at 20mph, bet it'll stall after shaking you to a minor concussion.

What kind of drives in 5th@20?

pingu393 said:

Given the choice between doing Route 66 in a V8 gas guzzler for $600 or a relatively uninspiring diesel for $200, I know what I'd do.

You'd need a DeLorean if you want to drive Route 66.

[Vladimir]

Fox- said:

Nobody disputes that.

It's HOW MUCH less fuel that matters.

I spent yesterday driving a BMW X1 2.0d around town completely normally. It did 33mpg. To be honest 33mpg around town isn't THAT bad, but what it is, is absolutely miles away from anything ever quoted.

It's also not good enough for me to see the point.

33mpg around town in a semi SUV is actually pretty damn good.

I agree that a fair few diesels get under their combined figures - our van isn't run in yet but I struggle to see over 30mpg. But then it weighs well over 2.5 tonnes and what really kills it around here is that everywhere is extremely hilly. Again the BM rarely gets much above 30mpg but then it's around 300bhp and I drive it rapidly. So while the figures don't match the combined numbers, we live in a largely rural area full of hills. People in flat counties report over 40mpg for their 180bhp Californias. Similar with BMs.

Try sticking a petrol engine in a 2.5++ tonne van, drive it in hilly areas then see what you get. Then try the same with a 335i instead of a 335d. About 10mpg less.

But as you can see, we aren't chasing mega mpg figures anyway. We simply prefer the diesel option in the BMW and have no choice in the van! They did the R32 unit in the T5 van (or maybe T4) and the mpg was simply appalling.

I wil repeat again but your average buyer paying over £40k for a car isn't all that worried about the COST of fuel and mpg figures. They are interested in RANGE. The BM does over 400 miles on a tank. The van does 450. Find me a 300bhp petrol car that's fun to drive that'll get anywhere near that and the same with a heavy van and I'll re-name myself Barbara.

[ADM06]

XitUp said:

ADM06 said:

Yes but not by myself. Try driving in 5th at 20mph, bet it'll stall after shaking you to a minor concussion.

What kind of drives in 5th@20?

What sort of changes down if they don't have to? If you want to run a correctrol engined car then drive it economically when the circumstances negate having fun, ie 20/30 limit stretches.
(diesel drivers not included, as they have no choice in the matter)

[Vladimir]

ADM06 said:

What sort of changes down if they don't have to? If you want to run a correctrol engined car then drive it economically when the circumstances negate having fun, ie 20/30 limit stretches.
(diesel drivers not included, as they have no choice in the matter)

My current assumptions:

1) You have just passed your driving test
2) You haven't driven many cars
3) You could do with some Pass Plus or IAM tuition
4) You're very angry
5) You undoubtedly struggle with girls
6) You still live with your parents

Come back here in ten years when you've had enough experience to form a useful opinion.

[ADM06]

Vladimir said:

My current assumptions:

1) You have just passed your driving test
2) You haven't driven many cars
3) You could do with some Pass Plus or IAM tuition
4) You're very angry
5) You undoubtedly struggle with girls
6) You still live with your parents

Come back here in ten years when you've had enough experience to form a useful opinion.

Please allow me to retort.
1. You are Sherlock Holmes.

[heebeegeetee]

ADM06 said:

Lol wut? A petrol v8 will pull from as low as 500rpm, perhaps lower. Any diesel will not pull from below 2000rpm.
Low revving diesel myth, debunked.

Blimey. Even our mundane four-pot Seat dag-dag spends most of it's time below 2,000 rpm. Only time it spends much above 2k rpm is on the m'way when it's doing 85 at 2.5k-ish.

You can make decent progress off m'way in our mundane diesel without going above 2k rpm.

[daemon]

ADM06 said:

I would consider myself the likely candidate for a diesel, but because of the econo-lie stated above, I'd rather a small petrol so I am not part of the con.
You mistake my disbelief for anger. At no point did I say I own the fiesta or pay for the dangerous slippery fuel it uses, but if did buy a car for it to use much more fuel than I had been led to believe, I'd be pretty pissed.

You're a Real Man and drive a petrol car then?

Not what your previous posts say..

ADM06 said:

My arosa sdi does has done 59 - 76mpg per tank since I bought it in November. It normally does high 60's. There is no turbo to go wrong, it's a doddle to work on and part worn tyres cost £15. The cambelt change was pretty cheap at £190 inc VAT and only needs doing every 60k.
Mine cost me a grand and was absolutely mint.

[Lost soul]

Andy ap said:

That may be, but being used to driving a turbo petrol i know how to drive with boost. What i was reffering to was the 1.5k usable rev range compared to the 7 in a petrol. Diesels lump all theyre power down at once and thats it. U have to constantly stir the gears in a derv. Whereas a turbo petrol even will pull from allmost any revs.

How many petrol cars have a 7k usable rev range , come on tell me

You do not read what other people eare saying do you , you just do not get it do you

[ADM06]

daemon said:

ADM06 said:

I would consider myself the likely candidate for a diesel, but because of the econo-lie stated above, I'd rather a small petrol so I am not part of the con.
You mistake my disbelief for anger. At no point did I say I own the fiesta or pay for the dangerous slippery fuel it uses, but if did buy a car for it to use much more fuel than I had been led to believe, I'd be pretty pissed.

You're a Real Man and drive a petrol car then?

Not what your previous posts say..

ADM06 said:

My arosa sdi does has done 59 - 76mpg per tank since I bought it in November. It normally does high 60's. There is no turbo to go wrong, it's a doddle to work on and part worn tyres cost £15. The cambelt change was pretty cheap at £190 inc VAT and only needs doing every 60k.
Mine cost me a grand and was absolutely mint.

I am sorry I have not taken the time to fill you in on my personal life, but the seat is long gone. Indeed it did achieve the manufacturers figure, but it's not one of these new fangled quick diesels and suspect the decided factor is the lack of a turbo. If you were in the market for a car that was st in every way but running costs I would heartily recommend it.
For three blissful years before buying the seat I drove an old 328. They're not rare cars and I'm sure other owners can back me up on their willingness to pull from low revs. Alas taking out a mortgage and rising petrol prices made it a sensible option to switch for something cheaper, which I didn't do by halves.
Now I do not own any car, but still get to drive one daily. This is nice, but had I bought aforementioned fiesta for it's "fuel efficiency" I'd have been a bit gutted. All the money I am saving with free motoring is going towards my wedding next year. I am quite happy, have everything I need, but still hanker for that straight six sound.

[Lost soul]

ADM06 said:

For three blissful years before buying the seat I drove an old 328. They're not rare cars

You have just given me confirmation of what i was thinking

[ADM06]

Lost soul said:

You have just given me confirmation of what i was thinking

All of the above was true, except maybe it was more like two and half years.
I'm sorry it wasn't a Ferrari, I tried my best.

[heebeegeetee]

ADM06 said:

I am quite happy, have everything I need, but still hanker for that straight six sound.

Unfortunately the fine 328 has had to become a four-pot turbo two-litre.

That's petrol for you.

[StottyZr]

ADM06 said:

Indeed it did achieve the manufacturers figure, but it's not one of these new fangled quick diesels

Possibly heirin lies the issue, the fangled fast diesels have the ability to burn copious amounts of diesel. This is required to make lots of power, theres no way around it unfortunately. Although if you drive the new fangle diesels very gently and never use the power, they are extremely frugal.

[daemon]

StottyZr said:

ADM06 said:

Indeed it did achieve the manufacturers figure, but it's not one of these new fangled quick diesels

Possibly heirin lies the issue, the fangled fast diesels have the ability to burn copious amounts of diesel. This is required to make lots of power, theres no way around it unfortunately. Although if you drive the new fangle diesels very gently and never use the power, they are extremely frugal.

Is that not the best of both worlds then? I'd a 535d with a 350BHP conversion, and could get an easy 40mpg when cruising and taking it easy, yet for the 5% of the time i got to drive it like i stole it, it could hit 0-60 in 5.5s and shocking overtaking ability. Oh, and it topped out about 173mph.