MPG and your reasons!!!

[RobM77]

Fastdruid said:

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).

You're quite right, but what you say above doesn't go against what I said; the stalling is an entirely seperate issue and one I'm well aware of. I stall my 320d about once a week, and I genuinely can't remember the last time I stalled my Lotus, my wife's Honda, or a hire car. The stalling is a known issue with BMW diesels, but doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I love driving, not parking or pulling out of junctions. What I own my car for is peeling into a 50mph bend perfectly balanced in a gentle drift, not pulling out of my car park space at work. Handling and controls is what I buy my cars for - power, torque, acceleration, top speed, stalling, swirl flaps, turbos etc I don't really have much interest in, I just drive lots of cars and pick my favourite that also ticks my practicality and comfort boxes.

[Fastdruid]

RobM77 said:

Fastdruid said:

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).

You're quite right, but what you say above doesn't go against what I said; the stalling is an entirely seperate issue and one I'm well aware of. I stall my 320d about once a week, and I genuinely can't remember the last time I stalled my Lotus, my wife's Honda, or a hire car. The stalling is a known issue with BMW diesels, but doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I love driving, not parking or pulling out of junctions. What I own my car for is peeling into a 50mph bend perfectly balanced in a gentle drift, not pulling out of my car park space at work. Handling and controls is what I buy my cars for - power, torque, acceleration, top speed, stalling, swirl flaps, turbos etc I don't really have much interest in, I just drive lots of cars and pick my favourite that also ticks my practicality and comfort boxes.

Each to their own. You have a very very narrow criteria that a car has to match (eg throttle response) and you're not prepared to compromise on that yet will on everything else. I take the entire package and while the in band power/torque is fine or good I cannot live with the out of band (lack of) performance.

It's not a separate issue, it's the lack of any torque below 1500rpm (or whatever it was on the 318d) that both causes stalling and annoyance/lack of go.

BTW I was later told by a diesel calibration engineer that it's nearly impossible to stall a diesel on idle as long as you're not touching the throttle so I was probably driving it wrong and maybe you are too.

[Pan Pan]

Fastdruid said:

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....

Plus the fact that LPG vehicles are banned from going certain places, including the Channel Tunnel, because of the fuel type.

[xRIEx]

Fastdruid said:

Nothing is a relative term.

I have to strongly disagree with you on that.

"Less", "fewer", "greater" are all relative terms; "nothing" is an absolute, e.g. absolute zero.

It's arguably the absolute.

[Fastdruid]

xRIEx said:

Fastdruid said:

Nothing is a relative term.

I have to strongly disagree with you on that.

"Less", "fewer", "greater" are all relative terms; "nothing" is an absolute, e.g. absolute zero.

It's arguably the absolute.

Fine. I hate the fewer, fewer, fewer, fewer, all, fewer, fewer, fewer, fewer power delivery of diesels.

Happy now?

[Sump]

No.

I have so much money.

[RobM77]

Fastdruid said:

RobM77 said:

Fastdruid said:

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).

You're quite right, but what you say above doesn't go against what I said; the stalling is an entirely seperate issue and one I'm well aware of. I stall my 320d about once a week, and I genuinely can't remember the last time I stalled my Lotus, my wife's Honda, or a hire car. The stalling is a known issue with BMW diesels, but doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I love driving, not parking or pulling out of junctions. What I own my car for is peeling into a 50mph bend perfectly balanced in a gentle drift, not pulling out of my car park space at work. Handling and controls is what I buy my cars for - power, torque, acceleration, top speed, stalling, swirl flaps, turbos etc I don't really have much interest in, I just drive lots of cars and pick my favourite that also ticks my practicality and comfort boxes.

Each to their own. You have a very very narrow criteria that a car has to match (eg throttle response) and you're not prepared to compromise on that yet will on everything else. I take the entire package and while the in band power/torque is fine or good I cannot live with the out of band (lack of) performance.

It's not a separate issue, it's the lack of any torque below 1500rpm (or whatever it was on the 318d) that both causes stalling and annoyance/lack of go.

BTW I was later told by a diesel calibration engineer that it's nearly impossible to stall a diesel on idle as long as you're not touching the throttle so I was probably driving it wrong and maybe you are too.

It could be put that way, yes. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes and priorities. Mine are unusual, I admit, but I think they're easily understandable as to me they seem perfectly natural (obviously) and I'm not that unusual. Straight line performance does interest me a little, but it's way down on my list of priorities for a road car. That fact is best illustrated by me going from a string of straight six petrol BMWs to the diesel, despite an increase in expendable income. I think the best analogy is the quality of a hi-fi's sound versus the volume. Provided the volume is enough to hear it clearly, I'm mainly interested in quality (which is obviously subjective).

[xRIEx]

Fastdruid said:

xRIEx said:

Fastdruid said:

Nothing is a relative term.

I have to strongly disagree with you on that.

"Less", "fewer", "greater" are all relative terms; "nothing" is an absolute, e.g. absolute zero.

It's arguably the absolute.

Fine. I hate the fewer, fewer, fewer, fewer, all, fewer, fewer, fewer, fewer power delivery of diesels.

Happy now?

Grammatically speaking, no

[gizlaroc]

Not sure how this became a petrol vs diesel thread again?

Anyway....

DJP said:

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.

I have banged on about this for years now.

And again, the cars I have owned in the same model but on petrol and diesel, and the MPG AVERAGE they have got.....

Automatics.....

E39
530i 28mpg
530d 30mpg

E46
330i 29mpg
330d 32mpg

A6 quattro avant (C6 04-09?)
3.2fsi 27mpg
3.0tdi 31mpg

BMW sport touring
535d 27mpg
335i 27mpg

Mercedes
E320 27mpg
E320cdi 33mpg




Manual

1995 Audi A4
1.8i 25mpg
1.9tdi 55mpg

E46
318i 32mpg 1999
320d 44mpg 2002



I have however jumped from a 3.0 A4 quattro avant that struggled to beter 25mpg into a 2.0tdi DSG A3 that saw 45mpg without thrying, and then praised how much more economical diesel is.

In the same regard, I went from my 3.2fsi A6 into the 3.0tdi A6 in the winter and on my 10 mile commute the diesel was 1mpg behind the petrol.


I had the new A3 loaned to me and I did the same 90 mile round trip that I do all the time in both the 1.4tfsi and the 2.0tdi, they both returned 48mpg.

I get diesels, I really do, but I am also realistic about what they really save me money wise, the way I drive and the routes I do and the sort of cars I like (generally bigger) they make less sense to me as I wouldn't want to spend money on a new super efficient diesel.

I had a new 320d sport touring for a day last week, nice enough car, but it was at 42mpg at the end of the day, which is fine, but I also had a 530d sport out which was showing 37mpg, for the extra refinement and power the 530d seemed a much better bet, until I took out a 535i sport out, and that was showing 32mpg when returned, it was also showing 31mpg over the long term average.

I am down from 45k miles a year to around 20-25k miles a year, and I can't see the point of trying to save £5-10 a week on fuel if it means I am compromising on the car I really want, if I get the car I want and save teh MPG great, but it doesn't sway my decision. Every time it has I have got bored after a few months, sold it and lost around 3 years worth of fuel in depreciation!

[Fastdruid]

gizlaroc said:

Not sure how this became a petrol vs diesel thread again?

Because it's about MPG and the reason most people buy a diesel is MPG.

[gizlaroc]

Fastdruid said:

gizlaroc said:

Not sure how this became a petrol vs diesel thread again?

Because it's about MPG and the reason most people buy a diesel is MPG.

But I thought most diesel owners say they bought a diesel because they prefer the torque?

[PanzerCommander]

2006 Mustang GT 4.6L Automatic.

When I bought it it did around 18mpg day to day and 31 on a run.

Post modifications (cold air intake, new intake manifold, 3.73 gears (stock 3.31) and a host of other mods it now does 20mpg day to day and around 26mpg on a run.

This past weekend the 80 mile return trip (twice), of Hull to York Raceway (formerly Melborne airfield) and 14 passes on the drag strip cost me £60 in V-Power. Given the absolute caning it received I can't complain

[Zwolf]

gizlaroc said:

Fastdruid said:

the reason most people buy a diesel is MPG.

But I thought most diesel owners say they bought a diesel because they prefer the torque?

"Most people" =/= "most diesel owners [on PH]".

Different samples, one a very small and unrepresentative subset of the other. So both *could* be equally true statements, by the people making them.

[Pan Pan]

PanzerCommander said:

2006 Mustang GT 4.6L Automatic.

When I bought it it did around 18mpg day to day and 31 on a run.

Post modifications (cold air intake, new intake manifold, 3.73 gears (stock 3.31) and a host of other mods it now does 20mpg day to day and around 26mpg on a run.

This past weekend the 80 mile return trip (twice), of Hull to York Raceway (formerly Melborne airfield) and 14 passes on the drag strip cost me £60 in V-Power. Given the absolute caning it received I can't complain

Exactly this - It sounds like your car does exactly what you bought it for. If fuel economy was a requirement, I am guessing it would not be your first choice.
People mostly buy cars which suit `their' particular set requirements. criticizing people for using a car type, just because it is not what `some' here would have bought for `their' requirements, does seem a bit odd.

[daemon]

DJP said:

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.

Yes. totally.

[daemon]

gizlaroc said:

But I thought most diesel owners say they bought a diesel because they prefer the torque?

No. Most still buy because of the "perceived" economy benefits.

There are exceptions to that - try a Nissan Juke or Qashqai with the 1.6 petrol and its a horrible thing, compared to the 1.5DCI.

In that case you would buy the diesel for the torque.

[ORD]

If anyone thinks that diesel engines no longer provide power for about 2k of the rev band, go and drive a Fiat Bravo:-

http://www.fiat.co.uk/uk/fiat-bravo/engines-techni...

I had one of these as a hire car, and its power delivery was like this:-

1k-1.5k rpm - about to stall; no ability to accelerate. I stalled it during most journeys having never stalled a car in about 10 years.
1.5 to 2k - cruising only; no ability to accelerate; feels like it may stall
2k-2.5 - a bit more noise and can accelerate, albeit slowly. For practical purposes, you have to keep it in this band at almost all times.
2.5 - 4k - decent poke; sounds like it is dying
4k - nothing left to give (although I think the redline was a bit higher, probably 4.5k).

For overtaking purposes, it had about 1.5k of revs to play with, meaning that I changed up during almost every overtake.

MPG in mixed country and motorway driving was somewhere in the high 40s. Would have been in the 50s if I could have coped with driving along with the engine just above its stall speed, but I found that very tiring and annoying, so I didn't.

Simply no comparison as regards power delivery with a modern BMW 4-cyl diesel. Apart from the noise, they are just infinitely more relaxing to drive (although, to be fair, I have never driven one in manual guise so it's not a wholly fair comparison). I don't get diesel manual cars, really - 4 pot diesels are infinitely better suited to autos.

[RobM77]

daemon said:

DJP said:

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.

Yes. totally.

If you do that then I'm confident the diesel will be more economical. For example, there's no way a 2007 320i is going to average 56mpg on my commute (what my 320d does). My Dad's 2011 320d ED averages over 70mpg on the same journey. Neither are figures that a 163bhp 2 litre petrol engine would get close to. I didn't buy the diesel for its economy, but to suggest an equivalent petrol is more economical is just silly.

[GrizzlyBear]

Of course MPG matters; I pay for the petrol! and a huge component of the cost of petrol is tax, and the Gov gets more than enough of my money as it is.

Of course I balance that with actually getting to the destination, and who is in the car with me; I was transporting older relatives half way across the country to see family the other weekend and got over 60mpg from the 1. shopping trolley; no point taking a quick car when the passengers complain when I go over 60mph (No really, they do!).

[Fastdruid]

gizlaroc said:

Fastdruid said:

gizlaroc said:

Not sure how this became a petrol vs diesel thread again?

Because it's about MPG and the reason most people buy a diesel is MPG.

But I thought most diesel owners say they bought a diesel because they prefer the torque?

No, people self-justify their decisions so while I'm sure there are some out there that really do, there are lots of justifications out there that people "prefer the torque" when they bought it for the MPG (and VED and BIK). Which buying is totally fine. (with a proviso that as Daemon points out there are cars for which the petrol version is absolutely shockingly awful and the diesel is the preferred version, although even then in the case of the Juke that's arguably just the poor base petrol 1.6 engine, the 1.6T sounds on paper a far better bet than the 1.5TD).