Sold diesel going back to petrol

[Devil2575]

GSE said:

I'm considering going back to a Petrol when I eventually replace my current commuter car, a 2007 Ford Mondeo 2.2 TDCI. From what I can gather it seems that new petrol vehicles nowadays offer almost the same fuel economy as diesels, and are far less complex - no need for DMF, DPF, high pressure injection system etc..

Really?

[gizlaroc]

Devil2575 said:

Really?

Yeah, well a lot closer, as long as you compare like with like.

1.4tfsi vs 2.0tdi both around 45mpg average.

535i vs 535d 32mpg vs 37mpg average.

Juke 1.5dci vs 1.2T 52mpg vs 45mpg average.



But many jump out of a 1.9tdi into a 3 litre straight six petrol and then wonder why you are getting 25% less.

Some petrols still do really poorly, as do some diesels.

[SilverSixer]

Isn't it more the case that current petrols show similar fuel economy to that which comparable diesels did 10 years ago, whilst diesels have become more economical themselves?

[gizlaroc]

SilverSixer said:

Isn't it more the case that current petrols show similar fuel economy to that which comparable diesels did 10 years ago, whilst diesels have become more economical themselves?

I don't think diesels are getting more economical.

I bought an A4 1.9tdi in 1995 and that used to average 55mpg and on a run back from St.Tropez we were stuck in constant traffic at 60-70mph and it saw over 70mpg.

They have then got progressively worse as stricter emissions dictate design, and they only just seem to be getting back to where they were 20 years ago.
However back then the 1.8i only used to average 28mpg, where as the 1.4tfsi is now seeing 40+ no problem at all.

My 535d averaged 26,9mpg over the 18 months and 40k miles I did in it, the 335i that replaced it averaged 27.2.

The guy down the road swapped his facelift 535d which was averaging 33mpg for a new 750i, that is a blown 4 litre V8 that gets to 50 in 4 something seconds and he is averaging 29mpg, and sees 35 on a run.
I bet the 750d isn't seeing much more than that.

I think there are some gems out there, the new 330d and 530d seem to do very well MPG wise from owners reports on here. However, when I speak to a mate at BMW who works in service he reckons most 330d's are showing around 38/39 on the obc and the 530d is showing around 35mpg on the obc. Reading on here you would think everyone is seeing 45mpg average and 60+ on a run.

I took a 535i out and a 530d, and one was showing 31mpg and the other 34mpg on the demo cars, so not really sure what that tells you.

I certainly don't think I do enough miles to make the decision a financial one, I am down to around 18,000 miles a year now from 40k+.

I would happily buy a small diesel that does 60+, but every time I do that I get bored and annoyed after a couple of moths, they always seem to under achieve.

I bought a 320d auto trouring recently for my wife as everyone said it was 50-65mpg all day long, but it always ended back at 40mpg after a few tank fulls. Yeah you could see 70+ on a steady run in the middle of the night, but start to use it for getting to work and school etc. and the figure soon dropped.

My 16 year old 2.8i Z3 is averaging 34mpg, so over the 12k miles a year we do in that car it would be about £7 a week saved.

Year old 535i vs new 520d? Hmmm? Let me think about that.

[Devil2575]

gizlaroc said:

Yeah, well a lot closer, as long as you compare like with like.

1.4tfsi vs 2.0tdi both around 45mpg average.

535i vs 535d 32mpg vs 37mpg average.

Juke 1.5dci vs 1.2T 52mpg vs 45mpg average.



But many jump out of a 1.9tdi into a 3 litre straight six petrol and then wonder why you are getting 25% less.

Some petrols still do really poorly, as do some diesels.

A modern 2.0 TDi only does 45 mpg? Really?

According to Honest John real mpg the Mk6 Golf 2.0 TDI does 58 mpg.
I work with a lad who runs Golf bluemmotion and he gets over 60 mpg out of it.

[LP670]

i think a lot of the negative comments regarding diesels are because they have owned german cars, which lets face it, arn't what they used to be but they have the badge, and in todays society that comes first for a lot of folk. look at the OPs list, all of his initial thoughts are VAG products, probably the worst of all the car companies for over complicating things and then compounded by poor design and substandard materials. i know this from first hand experience of spannering on my own audi a2 and my friends mk4 golf tdi.

my other car is a defender 300 tdi, if something breaks its easy to fix and usually cheap. i get the sense that the land rover designers didnt have the budget of the germans and factored in the poor quality components they had to work with by designed them to be easy to maintain and keeping things simple. obviously eu legislation has forced manufacturers to improve emissions and this has led to them developing solutions which have the potential to throw a bill but why is it always the german cars that seem to suffer from major problems?

[TobyLerone]

Last year, I bought a 2003 D5 XC70. It's pre-DPF, so I thought I wouldn't have to worry.

Aside from the suspension (which is SERIOUSLY pricey!), gearbox flush, tyres and brakes, it's not been too bad.

When I picked it up, however, it smoked an embarrassing amount on road. Put your foot down, plumes of black smoke... I think it had never seen more than 2,000 RPM from it's last owner. Cue a bunch of oil changes (~300 miles), and some hard, unsympathetic driving since I could take it back if I blew it up, it improved massively.

My point being, that pretty much any diesel designed in the last 15 or so years, if not driven hard and taken for a long, high-speed run at least once in a while, will clog up. DPF's and the latest emission controls have only choked the engines more, so more problems will arise.

It's not about 'improper use', but more correct use. If you do short trips, around town, buy a petrol. These problems will then disappear overnight.

[gizlaroc]

Devil2575 said:

A modern 2.0 TDi only does 45 mpg? Really?

According to Honest John real mpg the Mk6 Golf 2.0 TDI does 58 mpg.
I work with a lad who runs Golf bluemmotion and he gets over 60 mpg out of it.

I see loads of diesel owners in A3s reporting 42-48mpg average.
A very good friend at Audi said it is their number one complaint, the fact that most small diesels don't even hit the urban figure over the long term.

Maybe the latest gen versions have sorted it out more, bettering the official combined is very good.
Considering that is worked out from an average speed of 39mpg cruising and the urban run.



He gets 60mpg, but what would he get from the 1.4tfsi?
Maybe 50mpg?


Edit: I had the A3 in both 2.0tdi and 1.4tfsi guise (not cylinder on demand either, earlier model) and took them both out on a Sunday. Doing a 90 mile round trip across Norwich, out to the North Norfolk coast and back to Audi again they both returned 48mpg.

So it he gets 60mpg from the 2.0tdi bluemotion I bet he would see 55 from the 1.4tfsi, and the petrol is so, so, so much nicer to drive all round.

Edited by gizlaroc on Wednesday 17th September 14:12

[QuantumTokoloshi]

The modern diesel engine is something to avoid once out of warranty, DPF, high pressure injectors issues, leaking injector seals resulting in injectors jammed in head and worst case a scrapped head, EGR valve problems, Swirl valves clogging up then separating and being ingested into the engine.

The Euro V and Euro VI emission regulations are resulting in Diesel engines becoming fragile and wallet emptying to repair. A large capacity petrol is the best option, failing that a turbo charged petrol.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Wednesday 17th September 16:03

[Harji]

When I had a 320D I was doing a 120 mile daily round trip, Early morning, 10 mins to get to the motorway, and onto the M4 , my destination was just off the motorway so no town traffic and for 25K+ miles I was averaging around 50mpg calculated via a phone app, so real world figures.

When I was moved to another location (Reading, in the center) it would take about 15-20m mins, to get to my location in stop start traffic, and abut 20-30mins in traffic to get out of the damn place. When I left and sold my car my mpg had dropped to 40, that's six months I was in Reading, and real world mpg had dropped by 10 and was getting lower.

[V88Dicky]

Devil2575 said:

GSE said:

I'm considering going back to a Petrol when I eventually replace my current commuter car, a 2007 Ford Mondeo 2.2 TDCI. From what I can gather it seems that new petrol vehicles nowadays offer almost the same fuel economy as diesels, and are far less complex - no need for DMF, DPF, high pressure injection system etc..

Really?

I mentioned somewhere else, I've recently returned a C Class through work which was required for a long trip down south. Two big blokes, lots of heavy kit, a couple of days of driving around whilst there, then the long slog home. In total just under 650 miles.
It returned 49.6 by the end of the trip, which I think is excellent.

[bodhi]

LP670 said:

i think a lot of the negative comments regarding diesels are because they have owned german cars, which lets face it, arn't what they used to be but they have the badge,

To be fair my downer on diesel wasn't because of unreliability - in 50k miles over 2 and a half years, the only engine issue I had was a snapped alternator belt. Listening to internet folklore about the 330d, I should have blown up at least 4 times on the way into work, and scattered swirl flaps, injectors, turbos etc at the side of the M6. But it was fine.

the thing that put me off diesel (pretty much for life) were the other downsides. The limited rev range, the smell, the noise (which wasn't too bad I guess, but compared to a 330i? Not even on the same planet), the smoke - the fact that it just wasn't as nice to drive as a petrol BMW. After doing some quick man maths, I decided those downsides weren't worth the £20 a month in fuel savings. And that's with a best of breed diesel engine (for it's time), I dread to think how anti-diesel I would be after 50k in a 4 banger.

[CedricN]

bodhi said:

To be fair my downer on diesel wasn't because of unreliability - in 50k miles over 2 and a half years, the only engine issue I had was a snapped alternator belt. Listening to internet folklore about the 330d, I should have blown up at least 4 times on the way into work, and scattered swirl flaps, injectors, turbos etc at the side of the M6. But it was fine.

the thing that put me off diesel (pretty much for life) were the other downsides. The limited rev range, the smell, the noise (which wasn't too bad I guess, but compared to a 330i? Not even on the same planet), the smoke - the fact that it just wasn't as nice to drive as a petrol BMW. After doing some quick man maths, I decided those downsides weren't worth the £20 a month in fuel savings. And that's with a best of breed diesel engine (for it's time), I dread to think how anti-diesel I would be after 50k in a 4 banger.

You would hate it, I have an e91 318d, pretty good car, awful engine in every way (except for highways, which works pretty good). If I didnt do the mileage I would change it right away

[chrispmartha]

I just don't get why some people are so insistent in getting a diesel. I was talking to a colleague who asked my advice on a car she's looking at getting, I actually told her to keep the car she has as she's only years into a PCP but is considering swapping it for another 4 year PCP on a new car just because its newer which IMO is utter madness but each to their own. Anyway she does around 4-5k miles a year and she's insisting on getting a diesel because they are more economical, which again IMO is just madness.