"I don't do enough miles to justify buying a diesel"
Discussion
MC Bodge said:
Being "anti-diesel" for anything other than maintenance issues or particulates just seems silly.
I don't like the lack of torque (outside of the nice and fat but very narrow powerband) and lack of revs. I also dislike the noise, vibration and smell but I could live with those.
Fastdruid said:
I don't like the lack of torque (outside of the nice and fat but very narrow powerband) and lack of revs.
I also dislike the noise, vibration and smell but I could live with those.
My diesel is quieter than my petrol car, all but zero "vibration" and smell, smell of what.I also dislike the noise, vibration and smell but I could live with those.
Torques.....more than I need and shedloads more than a similar/bigger engined petrol. lack of revs?........to do what. ... a race track day?
Apples and oranges.
dme123 said:
Quite true, 4 pot diesel engines are almost universally quite nasty and I'd say even nastier then the already pretty s
t 4 pot petrols you get in hum drum cars. I must admit I do like the way a big >4 cylinder engine diesel can feel to drive though. Even the extra one cylinder in the Volvo and Mercedes 5 cylinder engines seems to make it a lot nicer.
I've got a Volvo S60 D5 as a motorway barge as it is extremely good at doing that job. My previous car for that job was a Passat PD TDi 130. t 4 pot petrols you get in hum drum cars. I must admit I do like the way a big >4 cylinder engine diesel can feel to drive though. Even the extra one cylinder in the Volvo and Mercedes 5 cylinder engines seems to make it a lot nicer.The Passat was slightly more economical but the refinement of the Volvo is leagues ahead of the PD engine, I presume that extra cylinder does make a massive difference.
Fastdruid said:
I don't like the lack of torque (outside of the nice and fat but very narrow powerband) and lack of revs.
A 2.0 TD (mostly a Peugeot HDI) Mondeo estate might not be as fast as a 2.5T petrol, but it is more suitable and pleasant in more typical situations than a similarly powerful 2.0 n/a petrol alternative. It is not a hardship or unpleasant to drive one. I adapt easily between a light, sporty bike and a big, diesel car.The lack of revs in the diesel is almost entirely irrelevant, the car has a gearbox, as does the bike.
I suspect that a newer BMW diesel is even better.
I'd be happy with a decent petrol (that doesn't drink like a fish and require constant fill ups on a long journey) , but used ones are quite rare.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 28th October 19:16
MC Bodge said:
Fastdruid said:
I don't like the lack of torque (outside of the nice and fat but very narrow powerband) and lack of revs.
A 2.0 TD (mostly a Peugeot HDI) Mondeo estate might not be as fast as a 2.5T petrol, but it is more suitable and pleasant in more typical situations than a similarly powerful 2.0 n/a petrol alternative. It is not a hardship or unpleasant to drive one. I adapt easily between a light, sporty bike and a big, diesel car.The lack of revs in the diesel is almost entirely irrelevant, the car has a gearbox, as does the bike.
I suspect that a newer BMW diesel is even better.
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, same power, same 0-60 but lighter and of course RWD. I was looking forward to it.
It was a turd.
Any "spirited" driving involved waggling the gear stick like an epileptic having a fit, I stalled it more times than any car I have ever driven before or since (and that includes while learning to drive) as it was so gutless outside of the powerband. It stalled over speedbumps ffs. Motorway use actually required changing down two gears to get between 50 and 70 otherwise I'd have died of old age before it got there. Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque and 1hp less power.
Honestly my girlfriends Puma 1.4i had more go (and only needed changing down once
) I concluded that it was a hateful car designed for badge snobs who cared more for mpg than for driving and moved on with my life.
In the mean time all the derv lovers are saying "I'm wrong", "they're not like that at all", "it must have been broken", "I'm driving it wrong".
Earlier this year I had the delights of a Galaxy TDCI140, exactly the same torque as my 2.5T, and you know what? It was slightly better but still just as gutless as the 318d. Since then I've driven a diesel Rav4 and a VW Golf. Both equally sh*t. Great in the power but it's so tiny you're forever changing gear and that's massively tiring and annoying.
Oh, and it's not just I can't stand slow cars, I then had the delights of a Micra and it is the slowest least "spec'd" car I've driven in years but at least it wasn't a diesel. It was massively slow but so much nicer to drive than any of the "faster" diesels.
Yes they have a gearbox but unless it is an auto you have to stir it like you're making meringue.
Every thread seems to have one person who argues passionately the opposite view to everybody else.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a diesel car, whether you prefer petrol or not.
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.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a diesel car, whether you prefer petrol or not.
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.
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?
I find our Galaxy 140 anything but gutless, you can catch it out if it isnt on boost, but, for the type of car it is, it has plenty of get up and go, a nice powerful petrol engine in an MPV is a waste, the diesel lump does its job fairly well, a 2.0 petrol wouldnt cut it in that size of car, we had a near 300 BHP Dodge Caravan in the states and their weird thing was, got back and the Galaxy didnt feel slower, most of the time it felt better, a V6 N/A faced with all that weight and a dopey autobox means the diesle lump suited it better, only when utterly hoofing the Yank Petrol did it ever feel quicker.
Diesel engines have their place, heavier vehicles, vehicles that do high mileages and for those who like the power delivery they give, I cant see the point as I would probably take a diesel in a small hatch in preference to a small, non sporting petrol.
Diesel engines have their place, heavier vehicles, vehicles that do high mileages and for those who like the power delivery they give, I cant see the point as I would probably take a diesel in a small hatch in preference to a small, non sporting petrol.
Not read the thread other than the first post.
But the only reason to buy a diesel is to save money, or maybe because the car you really like doesn't have a petrol engine worth having.
I am down from 40k miles a year to 20k miles a year, and no longer find diesel saves enough to put up with the st rev range and positively gruff sound.
I have had enough of the same car in their petrol and diesel equivalent and find there is never more than 25% difference, and often less than 20% over the long term.
Considering how much the cars cost and all other costs to run them like insurance, servicing, tax, tyres and depreciation then trying to save £10 a week on fuel is pretty pointless.
When I was doing 30k miles a year my 4.2 V8 S4 at 18mpg was painful, I swapped for a 335i which was doing 33mpg, far easier on the wallet, I then started doing 40k miles a year and swapped to a 320d and an older M3 for less money than the 335i.
The 320d only did 39mpg though, obc said 46, but fuelly showed 39mpg.
That was £110-120 a week, the 335i was £125-135 a week doing the same 40k miles a year.
So £15 a week for me, doing 40,000 miles a year, so when people say 'I don't do enough miles a year to justify buying a diesel.' and only do 10k miles a year, of course they are right to say that, they are probably saving less than a fiver a week.
But the only reason to buy a diesel is to save money, or maybe because the car you really like doesn't have a petrol engine worth having.
I am down from 40k miles a year to 20k miles a year, and no longer find diesel saves enough to put up with the s
t rev range and positively gruff sound. I have had enough of the same car in their petrol and diesel equivalent and find there is never more than 25% difference, and often less than 20% over the long term.
Considering how much the cars cost and all other costs to run them like insurance, servicing, tax, tyres and depreciation then trying to save £10 a week on fuel is pretty pointless.
When I was doing 30k miles a year my 4.2 V8 S4 at 18mpg was painful, I swapped for a 335i which was doing 33mpg, far easier on the wallet, I then started doing 40k miles a year and swapped to a 320d and an older M3 for less money than the 335i.
The 320d only did 39mpg though, obc said 46, but fuelly showed 39mpg.
That was £110-120 a week, the 335i was £125-135 a week doing the same 40k miles a year.
So £15 a week for me, doing 40,000 miles a year, so when people say 'I don't do enough miles a year to justify buying a diesel.' and only do 10k miles a year, of course they are right to say that, they are probably saving less than a fiver a week.
J4CKO said:
I find our Galaxy 140 anything but gutless, you can catch it out if it isnt on boost, but, for the type of car it is, it has plenty of get up and go, a nice powerful petrol engine in an MPV is a waste, the diesel lump does its job fairly well, a 2.0 petrol wouldnt cut it in that size of car, we had a near 300 BHP Dodge Caravan in the states and their weird thing was, got back and the Galaxy didnt feel slower, most of the time it felt better, a V6 N/A faced with all that weight and a dopey autobox means the diesle lump suited it better, only when utterly hoofing the Yank Petrol did it ever feel faster.
Exactly. To suggest otherwise seems peculiar. Razzing along, bouncing off the rev limiter before every gear shift in an attempt to reach 7000rpm and declaring that diesel is rubbish because it is not possible may be the first sign of madness mikal83 said:
Marcellus said:
We just had exactly this dilemma and "did the math"as advised by the salesman.
We had the choice of
- petrol 32k 2011 plate
- diesel 30k 2060 plate
- diesel automatic 38k 2011 plate
I all other respects the car was the same (C-Class Merc estate).
The petrol was the cheapest and would do 40mpg.
The diesel cost £1,500 more yet would do 60mpg
The diesel auto cist £1500 more than than that.
We were told that running/maintenance costs of all 3 other the next 4 years would be broadly similar.
So we excel spreadsheeted it and on fuel we're saving more than the £1,500 it would cost to buy into a diesel but road tax is slightly higher so it was roughly break even, we assumed equal depreciation.
So as there was no financial incentive it became an emotional decision"............ So we've got a 2011 C-Class estate on the driveway with a 1.8 kompressor engine.
So we excel spreadsheeted it and on fuel we're saving more than the £1,500 it would cost to buy into a diesel but road tax is slightly higher so it was roughly break even, we assumed equal depreciation.We had the choice of
- petrol 32k 2011 plate
- diesel 30k 2060 plate
- diesel automatic 38k 2011 plate
I all other respects the car was the same (C-Class Merc estate).
The petrol was the cheapest and would do 40mpg.
The diesel cost £1,500 more yet would do 60mpg
The diesel auto cist £1500 more than than that.
We were told that running/maintenance costs of all 3 other the next 4 years would be broadly similar.
So we excel spreadsheeted it and on fuel we're saving more than the £1,500 it would cost to buy into a diesel but road tax is slightly higher so it was roughly break even, we assumed equal depreciation.
So as there was no financial incentive it became an emotional decision"............ So we've got a 2011 C-Class estate on the driveway with a 1.8 kompressor engine.
WHAT
You pay 1500 a year in road tax...........and the diesel depreciates faster. Wow.
Fastdruid said:
I disagree. Once upon a time some years ago, I was not un-used to driving diesels after driving many many diesel vans (we used to hire a van every bike trackday) but had (outside of driving my dad's BX19 DTR aged about 16 round a field) not driven a diesel car.
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, same power, same 0-60 but lighter and of course RWD. I was looking forward to it.
It was a turd.
Any "spirited" driving involved waggling the gear stick like an epileptic having a fit, I stalled it more times than any car I have ever driven before or since (and that includes while learning to drive) as it was so gutless outside of the powerband. It stalled over speedbumps ffs. Motorway use actually required changing down two gears to get between 50 and 70 otherwise I'd have died of old age before it got there. Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque and 1hp less power.
Honestly my girlfriends Puma 1.4i had more go (and only needed changing down once)
I concluded that it was a hateful car designed for badge snobs who cared more for mpg than for driving and moved on with my life.
In the mean time all the derv lovers are saying "I'm wrong", "they're not like that at all", "it must have been broken", "I'm driving it wrong".
Earlier this year I had the delights of a Galaxy TDCI140, exactly the same torque as my 2.5T, and you know what? It was slightly better but still just as gutless as the 318d. Since then I've driven a diesel Rav4 and a VW Golf. Both equally sh*t. Great in the power but it's so tiny you're forever changing gear and that's massively tiring and annoying.
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 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, same power, same 0-60 but lighter and of course RWD. I was looking forward to it.
It was a turd.
Any "spirited" driving involved waggling the gear stick like an epileptic having a fit, I stalled it more times than any car I have ever driven before or since (and that includes while learning to drive) as it was so gutless outside of the powerband. It stalled over speedbumps ffs. Motorway use actually required changing down two gears to get between 50 and 70 otherwise I'd have died of old age before it got there. Remember this a lighter car with *exactly* the same torque and 1hp less power.
Honestly my girlfriends Puma 1.4i had more go (and only needed changing down once
) I concluded that it was a hateful car designed for badge snobs who cared more for mpg than for driving and moved on with my life.
In the mean time all the derv lovers are saying "I'm wrong", "they're not like that at all", "it must have been broken", "I'm driving it wrong".
Earlier this year I had the delights of a Galaxy TDCI140, exactly the same torque as my 2.5T, and you know what? It was slightly better but still just as gutless as the 318d. Since then I've driven a diesel Rav4 and a VW Golf. Both equally sh*t. Great in the power but it's so tiny you're forever changing gear and that's massively tiring and annoying.
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.
In the early 00's, I had a 2.0 petrol Mk1 Focus (quicker than my earlier mk1 Mondeo 2.0) when a friend had a Golf PD 130. Head to head, Straight-line performance was about the same, but the Golf made the Focus feel "gutless" if you had driven both and weren't absolutely wringing them out. The Golf also used about 60% of the fuel of the Focus. It was the first decent diesel I'd driven and things have moved on since.
This is what almost everybody, other the the most contrary, would think.
This is what almost everybody, other the the most contrary, would think.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 28th October 22:41
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 28th October 22:44
Fox- said:
Or because you buy used cars and nobody ever bought the glorious petrol alternative 
Dad went to buy a new A6 avant on Sunday, and they said they really do recommend going petrol as it is for mum who only does 8k miles a year, as many of her journeys are sub 5 miles and 10 minutes they said diesel was not a good idea at all. Dad completely agreed and said that he didn't want a diesel anyway, he has one at the moment in his ML and prefers the refinement of his petrols.
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.
So no wonder there is a lack on petrols used when you can't even buy many models in petrol anymore.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff