Diesel just doesn't win me over....
Discussion
ORD said:
I agree with the guy who said that people get annoyed because diesels are impossible to avoid. It took me months to find a decent petrol 3 series touring. Thousands of horrid 320ds!
ORD said:
It was depressingly hard to find what should be the norm for a RWD estate car that won't do many miles - reasonable capacity petrol engine with a manual box!
Indeed. Coupled with "I don't particually want to pay the M/RS/AMG tax for something that claims to be a sports car as I've already got one of those.My options (within 100 miles) were a couple of 535i's, no jags, one S6 and the big Merc.
Fastdruid said:
Because it's 80kg heavier, 0.5s to 60 slower, ~2k more to buy (both when new and now) and for all the "better mpg" I would save (ignoring the purchase, borkage and servicing costs, assume the average mpg is hit by both and *including* VED)...... £14 a year.
Looking at cars the same age as my current one (a 2008/08) if I'd bought new at list and was selling now at "trade in" price I'd have saved £134. Over 7 years.
80kg out of 1600 or there abouts? So about 5%. Looking at cars the same age as my current one (a 2008/08) if I'd bought new at list and was selling now at "trade in" price I'd have saved £134. Over 7 years.
Slower to 60 mph might matter if you're an average hot hatch buyer not not a 5 series.
Borkage doesn't matter if you buy new and even then I doubt many of the so called "ticking time bomb" issues will show up in the first few years of ownership. It's not like BMW petrols haven't had their fair share of issues as well.
The reality is that the power delivery of the 3 litre diesel is idealy suited to a big premium car like a 5 series. The 3 litre petrol may well be a bit faster but you're going to need to work it a lot harder to extract that performance.
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
Because it's 80kg heavier, 0.5s to 60 slower, ~2k more to buy (both when new and now) and for all the "better mpg" I would save (ignoring the purchase, borkage and servicing costs, assume the average mpg is hit by both and *including* VED)...... £14 a year.
Looking at cars the same age as my current one (a 2008/08) if I'd bought new at list and was selling now at "trade in" price I'd have saved £134. Over 7 years.
Is 0-60 time that important to you, given its not really a reflection of how a car drives?Looking at cars the same age as my current one (a 2008/08) if I'd bought new at list and was selling now at "trade in" price I'd have saved £134. Over 7 years.
Bung a remap on the diesel and get an easy 25% more power for £300. See how much extra power you get from a petrol for your £300.
I've just btw looked at servicing costs. The diesel is more to service so now the total saving is..... £14.
£2 a fecking year to not drive a diesel. Worth every single penny.
The only reason to drive a diesel is economy and for a theoretical £2 a year feck that.
ORD said:
Welshbeef said:
Other solution is to buy a new car and spec it exactly as you want keep it 10+ years and it will be a great and sensible buy.
Nah. If you add in the things that anyone sane would want, it's a £40k car. £4k a year for 10 years to drive around in a 3 series touring is a bit heavy (I know I wouldn't actually pay £40k).
I think the one I bought cost something like £24k and was £39k list a few months before. Nearly new makes a lot of sense when options depreciate like a stone.
Also the era of cars you and others have pointed out is when new cars sales were on their knees so very low number made hence if your looking at the 57-62/63 reg timeframe good luck you'll need it.
Welshbeef said:
We must have failure rates per 1,000 that is all.
People can spout all sorts online but facts are indisputable
Once again you've completely missed the point. Also, who's 'we'?People can spout all sorts online but facts are indisputable
There's a difference between failure due to fatigue and failure due to exceeding design limitations. By and large we're talking about the former with DMFs, and as such they're often looked at as semi-consumable. Thus, failure rates per 1000 aren't the be all and end all of reliability or performance measurement.
Let's try another approach. If the specification for your DMF says it has to last 60,000 miles and the DMF in every car you make lasts at least 60,000 miles, then your 'failure rate' is zero as all parts met the design brief. However, if it then transpires that out of all of the cars the ones with diesel engines experience DMF failure at an average of 67,000 miles while the ones with petrol engines experience DMF failure at an average of 142,000 miles you can see that the loading case is harder for diesels.
Facts are indisputable. Diesel combustion places more load into a DMF than petrol combustion. Fact. Nothing to do with failure rates or other arbitrary measurement techniques, it's just the physics behind the diesel and otto cycles.
Don't confuse lack of evidence with validation of the null hypothesis.
luckystrike said:
Welshbeef said:
We must have failure rates per 1,000 that is all.
People can spout all sorts online but facts are indisputable
Once again you've completely missed the point. Also, who's 'we'?People can spout all sorts online but facts are indisputable
There's a difference between failure due to fatigue and failure due to exceeding design limitations. By and large we're talking about the former with DMFs, and as such they're often looked at as semi-consumable. Thus, failure rates per 1000 aren't the be all and end all of reliability or performance measurement.
Let's try another approach. If the specification for your DMF says it has to last 60,000 miles and the DMF in every car you make lasts at least 60,000 miles, then your 'failure rate' is zero as all parts met the design brief. However, if it then transpires that out of all of the cars the ones with diesel engines experience DMF failure at an average of 67,000 miles while the ones with petrol engines experience DMF failure at an average of 142,000 miles you can see that the loading case is harder for diesels.
Facts are indisputable. Diesel combustion places more load into a DMF than petrol combustion. Fact. Nothing to do with failure rates or other arbitrary measurement techniques, it's just the physics behind the diesel and otto cycles.
Don't confuse lack of evidence with validation of the null hypothesis.
On BMWs they are 150k - but could increase or decrease usage dependant.
Are you saying that instead of diesels being unreliable in fact certain usage of a diesel causes a part to wear out quicker?
A subtle difference but a big one
Devil2575 said:
Fastdruid said:
Because it's 80kg heavier, 0.5s to 60 slower, ~2k more to buy (both when new and now) and for all the "better mpg" I would save (ignoring the purchase, borkage and servicing costs, assume the average mpg is hit by both and *including* VED)...... £14 a year.
Looking at cars the same age as my current one (a 2008/08) if I'd bought new at list and was selling now at "trade in" price I'd have saved £134. Over 7 years.
80kg out of 1600 or there abouts? So about 5%. Looking at cars the same age as my current one (a 2008/08) if I'd bought new at list and was selling now at "trade in" price I'd have saved £134. Over 7 years.
Slower to 60 mph might matter if you're an average hot hatch buyer not not a 5 series.
Frankly the only reason to buy a BMW over an Audi or Mercedes is handling. If you're not bothered about the performance why bother with a BMW in the first place. Indeed why bother with anything over a 520i/520d.
Buying the big BMW's is *all* about performance so why settle for the slower, worse handling one for the sake of £2 a year?
Devil2575 said:
Borkage doesn't matter if you buy new and even then I doubt many of the so called "ticking time bomb" issues will show up in the first few years of ownership. It's not like BMW petrols haven't had their fair share of issues as well.
Borkage still counts unless you're only going to keep it for 3 years.Devil2575 said:
The reality is that the power delivery of the 3 litre diesel is idealy suited to a big premium car like a 5 series. The 3 litre petrol may well be a bit faster but you're going to need to work it a lot harder to extract that performance.
That's b
ks. The 530i weighs 80Kg less than my Mondeo with the same torque and more power and that needs a *lot* less effort than the equivalent diesel to extract the performance. Hell it's 100Kg lighter than the MPS with it's 2.3T and that doesn't need "hard work" to extract the performance.Fastdruid said:
A remap and it'll *still* be 80kg heavier and most importantly still be a diesel.
I've just btw looked at servicing costs. The diesel is more to service so now the total saving is..... £14.
£2 a fecking year to not drive a diesel. Worth every single penny.
The only reason to drive a diesel is economy and for a theoretical £2 a year feck that.
You're intent on looking at the negatives only, whereas I can be objective on the benefits of each fuel type.I've just btw looked at servicing costs. The diesel is more to service so now the total saving is..... £14.
£2 a fecking year to not drive a diesel. Worth every single penny.
The only reason to drive a diesel is economy and for a theoretical £2 a year feck that.
Clearly diesel isnt for you, but that doesnt make other peoples choices wrong.
Personally, when a diesel suited me best, i drove a diesel. Now i'm doing tiny mileage so i've a VR6 engined van for a bit of fun.
Doesnt make me hate diesel though.
Fastdruid said:
Devil2575 said:
The reality is that the power delivery of the 3 litre diesel is idealy suited to a big premium car like a 5 series. The 3 litre petrol may well be a bit faster but you're going to need to work it a lot harder to extract that performance.
That's bks. The 530i weighs 80Kg less than my Mondeo with the same torque and more power and that needs a *lot* less effort than the equivalent diesel to extract the performance. Hell it's 100Kg lighter than the MPS with it's 2.3T and that doesn't need "hard work" to extract the performance.I'm sure the 2.5T doesn't require working as hard as a 2.2 diesel, it's a bigger engine and it also has a turbo. No one has ever argued that a Turbo diesel can compete with a Petrol turbo, although i'm sure that the diesel gives plenty of mid range shove to make it a fairly relaxing car to drive. You can't use that Mondeo analogy on the 5 series because the 530i is naturally aspirated and produced it's torque and power much further up the rev range. That's before you compare the numbers;
Mondeo 2.5T 216 bhp, 236lb/ft
Mondeo 2.2 Tdci 172 bhp, 295 lb/ft.
So the diesel loses 40 bhp but gains 60 lb/ft
BMW 530i (E60) 258 bhp, 227 lb/ft
BMW 530d 227 bhp, 369 lb/ft
So the diesel loses 30 bhp but gains 140 lb/ft
And that's before you consider that different way the power is delivered.
I've owned a 530i and a 330i and in order to get the best out them you have to rev them past 4000 rpm. This isn't expecially taxing but compared to the 330d/530d which has over 140 lb/ft more torque which it produces at a lot less revs it is more effort.
Devil2575 said:
Sorry but what is the diesel equivalent to the 2.5T Mondeo? I'm fairly certain there isn't one. The closest is the 2.2.
I'm sure the 2.5T doesn't require working as hard as a 2.2 diesel, it's a bigger engine and it also has a turbo. No one has ever argued that a Turbo diesel can compete with a Petrol turbo, although i'm sure that the diesel gives plenty of mid range shove to make it a fairly relaxing car to drive. You can't use that Mondeo analogy on the 5 series because the 530i is naturally aspirated and produced it's torque and power much further up the rev range. That's before you compare the numbers;
Mondeo 2.5T 216 bhp, 236lb/ft
Mondeo 2.2 Tdci 172 bhp, 295 lb/ft.
So the diesel loses 40 bhp but gains 60 lb/ft
BMW 530i (E60) 258 bhp, 227 lb/ft
BMW 530d 227 bhp, 369 lb/ft
So the diesel loses 30 bhp but gains 140 lb/ft
And that's before you consider that different way the power is delivered.
I've owned a 530i and a 330i and in order to get the best out them you have to rev them past 4000 rpm. This isn't expecially taxing but compared to the 330d/530d which has over 140 lb/ft more torque which it produces at a lot less revs it is more effort.
I can't get my head around the idea that driving around at higher revs is somehow more difficult. It is simply a matter of selecting the correct gear. I'm sure the 2.5T doesn't require working as hard as a 2.2 diesel, it's a bigger engine and it also has a turbo. No one has ever argued that a Turbo diesel can compete with a Petrol turbo, although i'm sure that the diesel gives plenty of mid range shove to make it a fairly relaxing car to drive. You can't use that Mondeo analogy on the 5 series because the 530i is naturally aspirated and produced it's torque and power much further up the rev range. That's before you compare the numbers;
Mondeo 2.5T 216 bhp, 236lb/ft
Mondeo 2.2 Tdci 172 bhp, 295 lb/ft.
So the diesel loses 40 bhp but gains 60 lb/ft
BMW 530i (E60) 258 bhp, 227 lb/ft
BMW 530d 227 bhp, 369 lb/ft
So the diesel loses 30 bhp but gains 140 lb/ft
And that's before you consider that different way the power is delivered.
I've owned a 530i and a 330i and in order to get the best out them you have to rev them past 4000 rpm. This isn't expecially taxing but compared to the 330d/530d which has over 140 lb/ft more torque which it produces at a lot less revs it is more effort.
Power is what makes the car move, so you just identify that combination of torque and revs that will give you the amount of power that you want. A petrol engine often gives you quite a lot of flexibility on that.
Monkeylegend said:
daemon said:
Monkeylegend said:
You lot still arguing, thought you would have reached a concensus by now.
"sometimes diesel cars suit peoples needs, sometimes petrol cars suit peoples needs."
And we all love a good jerk don't we
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff