"I don't do enough miles to justify buying a diesel"
Discussion
I think sometimes people over estimate how much they will save, a very polarised opinion where petrol will bankrupt them and diesel motoring is practically free, they tend to talk up the economy of the diesel and down the economy of the petrol.
When you factor in the additional few pence on diesel, additional cost of the car and throw in all the other costs, it doesnt generally, for most drivers of average cars, doing average miles to make a huge difference in the long run, I think some don't actually ever work it out but feel like they should buy a diesel so as not to miss out on the savings.
For some cars it is the best option though.
When you factor in the additional few pence on diesel, additional cost of the car and throw in all the other costs, it doesnt generally, for most drivers of average cars, doing average miles to make a huge difference in the long run, I think some don't actually ever work it out but feel like they should buy a diesel so as not to miss out on the savings.
For some cars it is the best option though.
J4CKO said:
I think sometimes people over estimate how much they will save, a very polarised opinion where petrol will bankrupt them and diesel motoring is practically free, they tend to talk up the economy of the diesel and down the economy of the petrol.
When you factor in the additional few pence on diesel, additional cost of the car and throw in all the other costs, it doesnt generally, for most drivers of average cars, doing average miles to make a huge difference in the long run, I think some don't actually ever work it out but feel like they should buy a diesel so as not to miss out on the savings.
For some cars it is the best option though.
And many compare their new turboed 2 litre 4cyl diesel with either small NA petrol that needs the nuts revving off it or a large 3 litre 6 cylinder petrol that is obviously going to drink more. When you factor in the additional few pence on diesel, additional cost of the car and throw in all the other costs, it doesnt generally, for most drivers of average cars, doing average miles to make a huge difference in the long run, I think some don't actually ever work it out but feel like they should buy a diesel so as not to miss out on the savings.
For some cars it is the best option though.
But compare a 3.2fsi with the 3.0tdi, or the 535d with the 535i, or the 2.0tdi with the 1.4tfsi, or the 330i with the 330d and you will find when comparing apples with apples sometimes the petrol can give better mpg than the diesel.
I found on a 9 mile commute in winter that was often the case.
But don't compare a VAG 1.8i designed in 1995 with a new BMW 320d and think all petrol and diesels will be that far apart.
Firstof all ,OP was talking about a PD VAG. Unless I'm mistaken ,that's pre DPF days. But if he's only doing a few miles to work , why go Audi size, unless you're looking at an A1 , which being recent will have all the nasties, certainly ot PD and possibly DPF. Don't be a badge snob. Try a Skoda. I run a Fabia MK1 1.4TDI as my pensioner runabout and past few years I've never exceeded 6k a year at trip computer and calculated 50mpg . It gets a regular decent motorway/DC blast and always surprises the MOT man on emissions. Vibrations- I've never noticed any from the 3 pot engine .Noise- I regularly hear PUGS/Fords etc sounding like traction engines at the lights and drowning out my engine noise. Someone mentioned Focus CDTI .Few years before retirement,our work got some Focus TDCI Estates. I seem to remember from the manual that this was a 1450 cc engine, and from what I know of Ford, it'd be turbo constantly on to assist engine, where as in mine, the turbo only kicks in when asked and I've had boy racers in Fiesta etc trying it on to get a shock as grand dad show them a clean pair of heels.
RESULT- Ford felt gutless compared to Fabia ,especially on overtake. Economy- rubbish against mine. Comfort- poor and engine noise- I thought a Transit 90/350 was quieter . But if you want something a bit bigger, there's Octavia, which I've heard from owners is more frugal on fuel .
RESULT- Ford felt gutless compared to Fabia ,especially on overtake. Economy- rubbish against mine. Comfort- poor and engine noise- I thought a Transit 90/350 was quieter . But if you want something a bit bigger, there's Octavia, which I've heard from owners is more frugal on fuel .
swisstoni said:
As the OP has only a 5 mile commute, and is keen not to spend a lot on fuel I'd be looking at the relative cold start fuel consumption.
I have no idea if there is a difference but if there is it could be a factor in the decision.
As a slightly extreme example, I used an XJ12 as a station car for a while. The sight of 7 mpg meant I bought a bike pretty soon.
Someone explain this to me. Yes 7 mpg seen in isolation looks dreadful but, 5 miles per day times 5 days is 25 miles, meaning 3 and a 1//2 gallons per week. Allowing £7 per gallon that's less than £25 each week. I don't see the problem. I'm assuming that the old Jag is sitting all day at the station, not depreciating by a single penny per day. I have no idea if there is a difference but if there is it could be a factor in the decision.
As a slightly extreme example, I used an XJ12 as a station car for a while. The sight of 7 mpg meant I bought a bike pretty soon.
Your lovely new Korean econobox diesel may well do 50 mpg but even standing still it will be losing a clean fortune in depreciation every single day, even if it's only doing 5 miles per day. Factor in the depreciation and the old Jag works out far far cheaper.
gizlaroc said:
He said the sales guy then went bright red when he realised there was no petrol engine available on the new A6. Unless you go S6 or RS6.
He even said there was no point continuing trying to hammer a deal out after he had spent the last 30 minutes telling him diesel would be a bad decision.
RS6 it is thenHe even said there was no point continuing trying to hammer a deal out after he had spent the last 30 minutes telling him diesel would be a bad decision.
Love the effortless delivery of power in my 'mapped' Golf GTD. So easy to drive. It's a great workhorse.
If buying for pleasure, petrol every time. If I could get my mileage under 20k a year I'd quite happily run a S4/RS4 as an only car.
Edited by Rick101 on Tuesday 28th October 23:38
gizlaroc said:
And I bet the 1.4tfsi would get you within 10% of that figure.
It sounds nicer, less to worry about, nicer to drive and on figures for A3 and Q3 worked out £50 a month cheaper, at £259 vs £309, almost covering all fuel costs on the petrol.
It sounds nicer, less to worry about, nicer to drive and on figures for A3 and Q3 worked out £50 a month cheaper, at £259 vs £309, almost covering all fuel costs on the petrol.
OP was talking about an OLDER car, pre DPF and most certainly PRE TFSI. Nicer to drive ???, I've had my licence over40 years and last week borrowed my daughter's hi spec Fiesta petrol. My 70's mini van was a better drive. But te main difference on a petrol over 4 years is cambelt change. I'd suggest the 10% fuel saving saving would more than cover this ,as a service on mine is mainly oil /filter change ,as opposed to the other demands of a petrol. MC Bodge said:
To declare modern turbo diesels "gutless" is quite odd to say the least and driving one in the same way that one might drive a revvy petrol engine is just failing to adapt.
The same statement though can be thrown back at diesel drivers, who typically struggle with petrols. Give them a fast petrol and they'll cry "it's slow, it's gutless, it has no torgues!" as they frantically shift at 3500rpm desperately struggling to tap into the power. Similarly, if you hope from a good petrol into a diesel and expect to get anywhere by holding gears, you'll come unstuck. Behind the unseemly vibration and clattering engine noise, you'll find a minuscule powerband which only gives short, sharp bursts. Even the hallowed BMW diesels aren't really revvy or fun.
Both demand to be driven differently, but only petrol really rewards. Luxury cars would seem an apt place for a diesel; masking the engine with good NVH design, auto' box to do the shifting for you, and designed for cruising rather than having fun. But even then, the big diesel is still inferior to a petrol in most ways; you have to wear a glove at the pump, the fuel is greasy and smelly, the car will clatter in a vulgar fashion at idle, it won't rev out satisfyingly, it won't sound nice and the other blokes at the golf house will look down their noses at you.*
- However, on those 1000+ miles in a day journeys which most car buyers seem to have in their head as they go looking for their shopping car, the diesel will go further between fuel stops. That could be the deciding factor on your 10 mile to work and back commuting car!
gizlaroc said:
And many compare their new turboed 2 litre 4cyl diesel with either small NA petrol that needs the nuts revving off it or a large 3 litre 6 cylinder petrol that is obviously going to drink more.
But compare a 3.2fsi with the 3.0tdi, or the 535d with the 535i, or the 2.0tdi with the 1.4tfsi, or the 330i with the 330d and you will find when comparing apples with apples sometimes the petrol can give better mpg than the diesel.
I found on a 9 mile commute in winter that was often the case.
But don't compare a VAG 1.8i designed in 1995 with a new BMW 320d and think all petrol and diesels will be that far apart.
A lot of the time you can't buy the petrol any more. E.g., there's an E350 V6 diesel, but only 4-pot petrols.But compare a 3.2fsi with the 3.0tdi, or the 535d with the 535i, or the 2.0tdi with the 1.4tfsi, or the 330i with the 330d and you will find when comparing apples with apples sometimes the petrol can give better mpg than the diesel.
I found on a 9 mile commute in winter that was often the case.
But don't compare a VAG 1.8i designed in 1995 with a new BMW 320d and think all petrol and diesels will be that far apart.
I've said it for years and if anything it's more valid than it used-to-be
If you do less than 15K miles a year and you're not buying a barge, a diesel won't save you any money over a 2-3+ year ownership.
It MIGHT over a shorter period IF you manage to duck the worst of the likely bills (FAP/DPF, particulate/pollution system, pump, injectors, turbo and so on) but that's a dice-roll on any car.
Note: this applies to vans as well as cars - I know someone who switched his van fleet from diesel to petrol because they only did about 8-10K a year and his first year costs are down 20% (and the costs on the diesels just went up and up after year 1 so...)
Moreover, the market is picking-up on this and diesel residuals are weakening which means it'll get worse before it gets better...
If you do less than 15K miles a year and you're not buying a barge, a diesel won't save you any money over a 2-3+ year ownership.
It MIGHT over a shorter period IF you manage to duck the worst of the likely bills (FAP/DPF, particulate/pollution system, pump, injectors, turbo and so on) but that's a dice-roll on any car.
Note: this applies to vans as well as cars - I know someone who switched his van fleet from diesel to petrol because they only did about 8-10K a year and his first year costs are down 20% (and the costs on the diesels just went up and up after year 1 so...)
Moreover, the market is picking-up on this and diesel residuals are weakening which means it'll get worse before it gets better...
ArmaghMan said:
Someone explain this to me. Yes 7 mpg seen in isolation looks dreadful but, 5 miles per day times 5 days is 25 miles, meaning 3 and a 1//2 gallons per week. Allowing £7 per gallon that's less than £25 each week. I don't see the problem. I'm assuming that the old Jag is sitting all day at the station, not depreciating by a single penny per day.
Your lovely new Korean econobox diesel may well do 50 mpg but even standing still it will be losing a clean fortune in depreciation every single day, even if it's only doing 5 miles per day. Factor in the depreciation and the old Jag works out far far cheaper.
Which lovely new Korean econobox diesel would that be, Swisstoni said he bought a bike?! At 25 quid a week for petrol and assuming 500 quid for a shiny new bike, the bike's paid for in 20 weeks... Your lovely new Korean econobox diesel may well do 50 mpg but even standing still it will be losing a clean fortune in depreciation every single day, even if it's only doing 5 miles per day. Factor in the depreciation and the old Jag works out far far cheaper.
Baryonyx said:
The same statement though can be thrown back at diesel drivers, who typically struggle with petrols. Give them a fast petrol and they'll cry "it's slow, it's gutless, it has no torgues!" as they frantically shift at 3500rpm desperately struggling to tap into the power.
Similarly, if you hope from a good petrol into a diesel and expect to get anywhere by holding gears, you'll come unstuck. Behind the unseemly vibration and clattering engine noise, you'll find a minuscule powerband which only gives short, sharp bursts. Even the hallowed BMW diesels aren't really revvy or fun.
Both demand to be driven differently, but only petrol really rewards. Luxury cars would seem an apt place for a diesel; masking the engine with good NVH design, auto' box to do the shifting for you, and designed for cruising rather than having fun. But even then, the big diesel is still inferior to a petrol in most ways; you have to wear a glove at the pump, the fuel is greasy and smelly, the car will clatter in a vulgar fashion at idle, it won't rev out satisfyingly, it won't sound nice and the other blokes at the golf house will look down their noses at you.*
As somebody who goes between a small petrol shopping car, a turbo diesel, a classic petrol 'sports' car to a fairly nippy motorbike, I have no problem driving/driving any of them and don't bother with prejudices -I just drive them according to their characteristics....Similarly, if you hope from a good petrol into a diesel and expect to get anywhere by holding gears, you'll come unstuck. Behind the unseemly vibration and clattering engine noise, you'll find a minuscule powerband which only gives short, sharp bursts. Even the hallowed BMW diesels aren't really revvy or fun.
Both demand to be driven differently, but only petrol really rewards. Luxury cars would seem an apt place for a diesel; masking the engine with good NVH design, auto' box to do the shifting for you, and designed for cruising rather than having fun. But even then, the big diesel is still inferior to a petrol in most ways; you have to wear a glove at the pump, the fuel is greasy and smelly, the car will clatter in a vulgar fashion at idle, it won't rev out satisfyingly, it won't sound nice and the other blokes at the golf house will look down their noses at you.*
- However, on those 1000+ miles in a day journeys which most car buyers seem to have in their head as they go looking for their shopping car, the diesel will go further between fuel stops. That could be the deciding factor on your 10 mile to work and back commuting car!
I fail to understand the strong feelings of love and hate about the subject.
I'd like to try a Tesla too.
Jimboka said:
Diesels are not just about saving a fortune in fuel. Lots of people, me included, prefer the way they drive on the open road.
Loads of people say this but I suspect what they really mean is they prefer the way a turbocharged car drives on the open road.The effortless performance my 530d offers on the open road is fantastic - I really like the power delivery once you get out of town - so I can see where you are coming from but crucially none of this power delivery is anything a 3 litre turbo petrol I once owned (And tried to find a car with again!) was also capable of doing, with the added bonus of sounding fantastic whilst it did it and not going dagadagdagdagdagdaga at the traffic lights when cold.
xRIEx said:
Fastdruid said:
I had a at the time 9 year old 2.0i mk2 Mondeo Estate. I had for a week the "pleasure" of a brand new 318d (a 2007 E90 fwiw), on paper it was pretty much the same as the Mondeo in every aspect, same torque ...
It was a turd.
Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque ...
AQG gives figures for:It was a turd.
Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque ...
E90 318 - 209 lb ft or 221 lb ft (different engines available in 2007)
1998 2.0 Zetec - 131 lb ft
How is a 2.0 turbo diesel going to have the same torque as a NA petrol of a similar capacity, and only a few years apart in design?
So it had 100Nm more torque than the Zetec and was still a massive turd.
Fastdruid said:
xRIEx said:
Fastdruid said:
I had a at the time 9 year old 2.0i mk2 Mondeo Estate. I had for a week the "pleasure" of a brand new 318d (a 2007 E90 fwiw), on paper it was pretty much the same as the Mondeo in every aspect, same torque ...
It was a turd.
Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque ...
AQG gives figures for:It was a turd.
Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque ...
E90 318 - 209 lb ft or 221 lb ft (different engines available in 2007)
1998 2.0 Zetec - 131 lb ft
How is a 2.0 turbo diesel going to have the same torque as a NA petrol of a similar capacity, and only a few years apart in design?
So it had 100Nm more torque than the Zetec and was still a massive turd.
Sheepshanks said:
If it wasn't broken then there must have been something seriously wrong with it, or it was some kind of de-tuned, over-geared, economy version.
I drove all sorts of 2 litre ish petrol and diesel cars as a rep in the 90's and early 2000's - everything from 2L petrol Sierra and Mondeo to diesel Audi A4 and 3 Series. I had a Peugeot 405GTX TD and liked it so much I got another.
One of the things I liked about the turbo diesels is the torque makes them feel much more effortless to drive and on some of them (I remember the Honda Accord diesel was especially good for this) you could leave it in 3rd and it would do everything from 15MPH to 75MPH which was great for twisty rural A road driving. It's also not that easy to stall a diesel - obviously you can do it on purpose, but you've got to be that brutal. And stalling over speed-bumps - give over.
Different era of diesels. I've not driven a single diesel that does from 15mph to 75mph in 3rd. Well, they might with attempting to throw then engine out of the car it shakes so much and take 2 years to do it.I drove all sorts of 2 litre ish petrol and diesel cars as a rep in the 90's and early 2000's - everything from 2L petrol Sierra and Mondeo to diesel Audi A4 and 3 Series. I had a Peugeot 405GTX TD and liked it so much I got another.
One of the things I liked about the turbo diesels is the torque makes them feel much more effortless to drive and on some of them (I remember the Honda Accord diesel was especially good for this) you could leave it in 3rd and it would do everything from 15MPH to 75MPH which was great for twisty rural A road driving. It's also not that easy to stall a diesel - obviously you can do it on purpose, but you've got to be that brutal. And stalling over speed-bumps - give over.
As for stalling, 2nd gear, wiff of throttle and kerclunk. Only way was in 1st or to be going far faster.
I did learn afterwards that I *was* possibly driving it wrong, I should have left the throttle alone as allegedly it's almost impossible to stall a diesel on idle as the computer handles everything and will just increase torque. As soon as you touch the throttle though you're controlling it and it can stall.
But there is just *no* torque in a modern diesel below ~1500rpm which is the most annoying feature and despite the claims that "it must be broken" every single one has been the same.
A very simple test, stick your diesel in 1st and get it moving, let it run at tickover and then put your foot down. Every single petrol car I have *ever* driven, no matter how slow, turbo'd, NA, piston, rotary will take off immediately.
Every single diesel I have ever driven wait's and wait's and slowly lumbers up to ~1500rpm and then finally bursts into life and takes off. That is what I hate, more than the lack of top end it's the bottom end, every junction, every roundabout it's put your foot down and wait and wait and wait for something to happen, followed by a flurry of power. Sure you can drive round it to a certain extent (or accept that you're going to take a few hours to get back up to 30) but it involves revving the t*t's off it in 1st (where they all sound like transits) and that makes a total mockery of the "easier to drive" and "more torque" claims, I find I have to change gear far more in a diesel than a petrol car.
Cost arguments aside, the most annoying everyday thing about diesels is the warm up time. Unless they have a fuel burning heater (and 95% don't) it takes miles and miles with the fans in auto deafening mode to get even a hint of warmth out the vents. Don't underestimate how much worse this makes a dark December morning when you just have to get to work.
My 20 year old LPG'd petrol blows warm at the end of the street.
My 20 year old LPG'd petrol blows warm at the end of the street.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff