MPG and your reasons!!!

[AC43]

I'm on holiday at the moment and being forced to drive a diesel Golf and I just can't get on with it.

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

I'd have a petrol 4 pot all day long in something like a Golf. The extra 25% or so of fuel use would just be the "tax" I'd be willing to pay to get away from the racket and endlessly-irritating power delivery.

For an exec, however, a 6 pot diesel mated to a 7 or 8 speed auto transmission is a totally different proposition. I'd do the diesel thing in one of those.

[Pan Pan]

neil1jnr said:

Pan Pan said:

Red16 said:

daemon said:

Heres my "best" journey to work over 39 miles

If you got a penny from every driver you hinder and annoy going to/from work driving as slowly as you do to achieve those high MPG figures you could probably commute to work for free.

Why on Earth do people assume that to achieve a good mpg figure you have to drive slowly? I never drive at anything less than road conditions / posted limits allow. (As posted before, I don't see the point of owning a motor vehicle, and then driving at less than the posted speed limit, or road conditions allow)
If people want to this they should just get a bus, or walk!
At 70 the engine in my car is turning over at barely above idling speed, it will do 40mph at idling speed in top. Therefore at motor speeds the engine is smooth, and silent, If I want the thrashing racket of a petrol engine at motorway speeds, I will use the Seven, knowing that if I am lucky, I will be getting around 20 mpg. Horses for courses.

I think he means hindering other drivers by accelerating very slowly, not in relation to your actual cruising speed. What you have said makes sense but you cannot achieve average mpg figures like you say over a tank of fuel if you are accelerating in relation to the traffic flow, any sort of meaningful acceleration severely reduces your mpg.

I don't accelerate slowly, but at the speed of whatever is in front of me (provided it is not a Lamborghini, Ferrari or Caterham 7 etc, (in which case I suspect most cars, petrol or diesel would have trouble keeping in contact with them) If you refer to some of my earlier posts, one of my pet hates are where drivers dawdle in traffic, and leave, or allow huge gaps to form between them and the car in front. Also people who travel at less than the posted limit or conditions allow, where other drivers `cannot' get past, consequently letting huge queues of frustrated drivers build up behind them.
Try driving a 2.0 ltr Passat Bluemotion for at least a year and you will begin to understand what it is `really' like in terms of performance and fuel economy. I just don't recognize the sort of cars that some who appear to dislike diesels are referring to. mine drives nothing like as badly as they describe, in terms of performance, noise, or the smell of the fuel.

[Fastdruid]

AC43 said:

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

[DJP]

daemon said:

...I happen to have 39 miles of commute across decent roads and at a time when theres little traffic. Wrong time of day and i could get as low as 55mpg.

Merely pointing out what a diesel is "capable" of, if you drive it with economy in mind.

So what we've learned is that modern cars can be remarkably economical when driven under certain conditions.

And it's no surprise that those reporting mega mpg figures also appear to be high mileage drivers – which pretty much mandates a majority of A road and motorway miles.

But what the dieselistas always tend to overlook is that pretty much anything can be economical under those conditions: I can get my juicy petrol car to show 50mpg, hell you can get 35mpg out of a 5 litre V8 under the right conditions.

But those conditions are hardly relevant to most people, most of the time.

60mpg might be do-able for Mr “40,000 motorway miles a year” but it's a pipe dream for the average, 8,000 miles a year, round-the-houses driver.

[xRIEx]

Fastdruid said:

AC43 said:

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

Because it sounds like Jeremy Clarkson macho idiocy: "I only drive 2000bhp cars, flat out, all the time, fk your pansy part-throttle bks - are you queer?!"

There is not "nothing" under 2krpm on a diesel, because "nothing" would mean the car wouldn't move at all. There is a large amount of torque at low revs meaning a modicum of power. Not "nothing".

What you actually mean is, because you're a red-blooded, supermasculine huge-cocked male, you have to convince everyone on an Internet forum that your stellar driving skills are such that you would choke to death on the cobwebs of boredom if you had to drive anything lesser.

[DJP]

Fastdruid said:

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

I take it you've not driven a Focus 1.6 diesel, then?

[gizlaroc]

xRIEx said:

Because it sounds like Jeremy Clarkson macho idiocy: "I only drive 2000bhp cars, flat out, all the time, fk your pansy part-throttle bks - are you queer?!"

There is not "nothing" under 2krpm on a diesel, because "nothing" would mean the car wouldn't move at all. There is a large amount of torque at low revs meaning a modicum of power. Not "nothing".

What you actually mean is, because you're a red-blooded, supermasculine huge-cocked male, you have to convince everyone on an Internet forum that your stellar driving skills are such that you would choke to death on the cobwebs of boredom if you had to drive anything lesser.

xRIEx is having a right old mare!!

[daemon]

DJP said:

So what we've learned is that modern cars can be remarkably economical when driven under certain conditions.

And it's no surprise that those reporting mega mpg figures also appear to be high mileage drivers – which pretty much mandates a majority of A road and motorway miles.

But what the dieselistas always tend to overlook is that pretty much anything can be economical under those conditions: I can get my juicy petrol car to show 50mpg, hell you can get 35mpg out of a 5 litre V8 under the right conditions.

But those conditions are hardly relevant to most people, most of the time.

60mpg might be do-able for Mr “40,000 motorway miles a year” but it's a pipe dream for the average, 8,000 miles a year, round-the-houses driver.

Yes. Totally.

Its a rebuttal to the argument though that "i would rather drive my six cylinder car that can do 35mpg on runs (conveniently forgetting that your "average" consumption will be much lower) when typically a diesel would only get my 45mpg anyway, therefore i dont understand why people drive diesels. they must be really sad".

When the reality is you're not comparing apples with apples because you're comparing they "best" economy they're going to get with the "worst" economy a diesel would get.

If someones getting 45mpg on a long run in their petrol car, then chances are i'm probably going to be getting 75-85mpg on the same run. If they're getting 35mpg on average, then chances are i'm getting 65mpg on average.

And yes, the more round town work you do, the lower the mpg on the diesel, though thats typical for a petrol car too.

Over driving say, a 1.8 petrol 4 cylinder car, i'm probably saving £200 a month and i'm not really losing out on anything - the 1.8 petrol would be fairly dull anyway.

Those who are driving 6's or v8's, chances are they're doing small ish miles and whilst their "i couldnt possibly drive a diesel" statement may hold true for their current situation, i wonder how long they would enjoy putting say £500 a month into fuel without taking some sort of evasive action?

[daemon]

xRIEx said:

Fastdruid said:

AC43 said:

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

Because it sounds like Jeremy Clarkson macho idiocy: "I only drive 2000bhp cars, flat out, all the time, fk your pansy part-throttle bks - are you queer?!"

There is not "nothing" under 2krpm on a diesel, because "nothing" would mean the car wouldn't move at all. There is a large amount of torque at low revs meaning a modicum of power. Not "nothing".

What you actually mean is, because you're a red-blooded, supermasculine huge-cocked male, you have to convince everyone on an Internet forum that your stellar driving skills are such that you would choke to death on the cobwebs of boredom if you had to drive anything lesser.

+1

And lets not forget AC43 drives an S500 merc, so ANYTHING is going to seem unrefined in comparison.

[Fastdruid]

xRIEx said:

Fastdruid said:

AC43 said:

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

Because it sounds like Jeremy Clarkson macho idiocy: "I only drive 2000bhp cars, flat out, all the time, fk your pansy part-throttle bks - are you queer?!"

There is not "nothing" under 2krpm on a diesel, because "nothing" would mean the car wouldn't move at all.

Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning?

Nothing is a relative term. There is obviously some torque but say it's got 320Nm at peak it feels like there is 10Nm below 1750rpm. Enough to move, not enough to accelerate any faster than an Tata Nano and feels like it doesn't move at all. I find myself driving the diesel full throttle far more and using every gear instead of wafting along in 3-5th with a whiff of throttle. Obviously this is due to having 2000hp in my daily.

Still, I will soon have the ultimate comparison, after being given Diesel cars as courtesy cars with the same torque as mine (obviously less than the 2000hp I'm used to) while mine is in the body shop today I'm expecting a Nissan Micra. Will I curse a 1.2 petrol more than a 2.0TDCI140? Will I be able to cope with a redline lower than the 60500rpm my 2000hp superbeast revs to to make it's power from only 320Nm? Will I cope with only 110Nm?

[toon10]

It bothers me and it doesn't. I drive a 325i which is 90% urban driving. I get about 23mpg. That's not great but my commute takes less than 10 minutes and I ony do about 7000k - 8000k per year so I can justify it. I've been using a Volvo S80 D5 for the last month and it saved me £20 in that time. Definately chepaer on fuel but not enough for me to justify running a diesel.

On the flip side, I've discounted owning cars in the past that I wanted such as the 350Z. The extra fuel each month running a low mpg car on urban runs and more regular visits to the petrol station put me off. I know plenty of people who have bought gas guzzlers and sold them in under 6 months due to extra running costs.

[pits]

Frankly couldn't care less, I've done about 7k miles in 4/5 months at a constant average of around 18mpg.
Eco friendly mpg muncher that does 100 billion mpg, or.
540i with leather seats and a phone in the centre console with a twirly wire, yeah I'll take the V8 please.

That said on a run I do get around 32-34mpg at 70mph, at 56 mph I can just eek 38mpg....but it is tedious and for the sake of 5 mpg or so rather do 70.

[Zwolf]

daemon said:

Those who are driving 6's or v8's, chances are they're doing small ish miles and whilst their "i couldnt possibly drive a diesel" statement may hold true for their current situation, i wonder how long they would enjoy putting say £500 a month into fuel without taking some sort of evasive action?

That's me. Thankfully, diesel is not the only course of evasive option open to the fan of cars with larger than average petrol engines.

I currently have two vehicles in use: a company car with a little diesel engine that returns mid-fifties mpg (that I don't enjoy driving) and an old BMW that returns mid-late twenties in like-for-like use (that I do enjoy driving very much).

I'm *really* not a fan of diesels if they can be avoided at all, so given that I'm moving to a one car solution and around 30k mpa, logic has led me to LPG convert the Seven to halve what would be a considerable fuel bill otherwise. The cost of the conversion and increased insurance premium would be recouped by losing the BIK burden of the company car alone over two years:

Currently spending ~£200pm for 18k mpa combined mileage/use.

Without LPG conversion, that would become ~£270pm to run just the diesel or £535pm to run just the petrol for 30k mpa.

With LPG conversion, that becomes ~£290pm to run just the petrol.

So a ~50% increase in fuel bill for a 66% increase in total annual mileage in either case and a neglibile premium to keep the big petrol over a small diesel. No brainer, really.

Of course insurance premium goes up a little and consumables will also be greater at 30k vs the current ~5k it does. Which I'm prepared to accept as the reasonable price of spending many hours and miles NOT driving a modern diesel econobox as my sole mode of transport.

Keeping both would be a reasonable compromise, but the cost of local additional garaging/parking at either work or home end renders that option a no-go.

TL;DR version: 30k mpa still possible without going diesel or paying out fortunes.

[RobM77]

Fastdruid said:

AC43 said:

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

Whilst you're correct, diesels do vary. A BMW diesel engine for instance doesn't have that sort of delivery; they went to huge lengths to try and make it drive more like a petrol engine with a bigger spread of torque and reviness. Before anyone mis-quotes me on that, I didn't say "like a petrol engine" I said "more like a petrol engine". Can I just say that again? I didn't say "like a petrol engine" I said "more like a petrol engine". I'll still get mis-quoted though I bet..

I personally prefer the power delivery of a petrol engine, but it's a myth that all diesel engines drive like a traditional old school diesel, because they don't.

[daemon]

Zwolf said:

That's me. Thankfully, diesel is not the only course of evasive option open to the fan of cars with larger than average petrol engines.

Yes, totally agree. Thats why i put evasive action rather than "buy a diesel".

Also, hybrids, also i guess - changing jobs or moving closer to work.

[RobM77]

In terms of the mpg argument, here's the maths for my daily commute:

80 miles a day
My current diesel engined car: 56mpg, so £8.76 at current local fuel prices
My previous petrol engined car: 35mpg, so £13.39 at current local fuel prices

Annual savings owning the diesel assuming 233 working days a year: £1078.79 (~30%)

That nearly pays for the servicing, tax and insurance on my Lotus (which is deep into single figures for mpg on track!).

It's all a matter of personal taste at the end of the day. Personally, I love driving and try not to compromise. If a FWD Mondeo came out that did 70mpg, or even 90mpg, I wouldn't swap, even though I spend 70 miles a day at a steady 70mph driving in a straight line. My reason is the bits of my commute that involve cornering are good fun and I enjoy them. I wouldn't even swap for 100mpg. In fact, I chose my daily driver because I liked the way it drove and I tested petrol and diesel cars equally. If I had to move to a built up area closer to work or go for that 100mpg FWD car though? I'd probably choose FWD as I like living in the country. It's very individual.

Everyone has their own priorities and it's down to each individual to work them out, not get told what to like by people on the internet.

[DJP]

daemon said:

....When the reality is you're not comparing apples with apples because you're comparing they "best" economy they're going to get with the "worst" economy a diesel would get...

Agreed.

But that argument cuts both ways: I drive a large petrol engined car and I've lost count of the number of people who tell me that they get "Blah, blah, blah" mpg from their diesel while conveniently ignoring the fact that their car's half the size of mine.

Earlier, I mentioned getting 40mpg out of a diesel. For the record, the following year, I pretty much repeated the same journey in an equivalent petrol engined car and got 33mpg out of that.

For a really scientific comparison, you'd need to compare equivalently performing petrol & diesel versions of the same car, driven over the same roads by the same driver. That would be interesting.

Someone saying that their small diesel, driven on quiet roads, gets better mpg than a large petrol car, driven in London, tells us nothing whatsoever.

[Fastdruid]

RobM77 said:

Fastdruid said:

AC43 said:

Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.

You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.

Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.

Whilst you're correct, diesels do vary. A BMW diesel engine for instance doesn't have that sort of delivery; they went to huge lengths to try and make it drive more like a petrol engine with a bigger spread of torque and reviness. Before anyone mis-quotes me on that, I didn't say "like a petrol engine" I said "more like a petrol engine". Can I just say that again? I didn't say "like a petrol engine" I said "more like a petrol engine". I'll still get mis-quoted though I bet..

I personally prefer the power delivery of a petrol engine, but it's a myth that all diesel engines drive like a traditional old school diesel, because they don't.

Except my most hated engine so far is a BMW, specifically the ~2007 E90 318d which is still my most stalled car to date (and I include while learning to drive in that). Even the RX-8 with it's "no torque" I only ever stalled once. Of course this (was) the bottom of the range and is nothing like the might 335d or even the ?23d which with their multi-turbos go to great lengths to extend the power and try not to er act like a diesel. Still the 318d totally put me off diesels and every drive in once since has been similar (although as stated the 318d was the worst).

[Fastdruid]

Zwolf said:

TL;DR version: 30k mpa still possible without going diesel or paying out fortunes.

I'd be worse off converting mine to LPG! Ok so I'd "save" ~£200pa but I'd reduce my car mileage rate so overall I'd be ~£120pa worse off!

I would be more than happy to do 30k of business miles a year, I'd save ~£717 a year....

[Pan Pan]

RobM77 said:

In terms of the mpg argument, here's the maths for my daily commute:

80 miles a day
My current diesel engined car: 56mpg, so £8.76 at current local fuel prices
My previous petrol engined car: 35mpg, so £13.39 at current local fuel prices

Annual savings owning the diesel assuming 233 working days a year: £1078.79 (~30%)

That nearly pays for the servicing, tax and insurance on my Lotus (which is deep into single figures for mpg on track!).

It's all a matter of personal taste at the end of the day. Personally, I love driving and try not to compromise. If a FWD Mondeo came out that did 70mpg, or even 90mpg, I wouldn't swap, even though I spend 70 miles a day at a steady 70mph driving in a straight line. My reason is the bits of my commute that involve cornering are good fun and I enjoy them. I wouldn't even swap for 100mpg. In fact, I chose my daily driver because I liked the way it drove and I tested petrol and diesel cars equally. If I had to move to a built up area closer to work or go for that 100mpg FWD car though? I'd probably choose FWD as I like living in the country. It's very individual.

Everyone has their own priorities and it's down to each individual to work them out, not get told what to like by people on the internet.

The best option is to be able to run two vehicles. With the Passat at one end of the usage spectrum, and the Caterham at the other.
One is comfortable, smooth, nearly silent at motorway speeds, gives outstanding mpg, and can carry large loads, over very large distances, without having to stop for fuel.
The other is cramped, raw, bl**dy noisy at any speed, gives horrendous mpg figures, and requires a visit to a fuel station every 100 - 120 miles. I absolutely love driving them both, and appreciate each for what it is, and what it does. but then being a piston head, I just like driving. period.