Bangernomics verses New Cars
Discussion
confused_buyer said:
I think it is fair to say there is a bigger leap between a 1985 car and a 2000 one than a 2000 one and a 2015 one.
By the late 90's most cars were pretty safe, pretty comfortable and had most of the equipment you actually need.
The only sector where there have been massive gains is the supermini one - try a 2000 Clio against a 2015 one. In the larger sector gains have been there but are quite small in many areas.
Have to agree there.By the late 90's most cars were pretty safe, pretty comfortable and had most of the equipment you actually need.
The only sector where there have been massive gains is the supermini one - try a 2000 Clio against a 2015 one. In the larger sector gains have been there but are quite small in many areas.
2000 i remember: E46 - a tight, refined good handling mid-exec; pumpe duse Passat - grunt, economy and a pleasing ride (not sporty, comfortable but not 80s squishy);
1985 was archaic by comparison. 4 speed manuals still existed, wind up windows, few airbags, drum brakes, leaded petrol etc.
Ford Cortinas only just out out of production.
Welshbeef said:
Oh I disagree the VW Punp Duse diesels were and still are drastically more thermo efficient than common rail. Back in the Mk4 Golf 1.9 Gt Tdi PD that would do mid 60's average and into the 70's. That's a 16 year old car Common rail sent efficiency backwards sadly.
But it powered lighter cars then. I appreciate you struggle with more than one parameter and you have never ever been wrong though.The official figures show massive improvements. Not sure they always translate into reality.
A 2000 Passat did much of what a 2015 one does - not saying there are not improvements but they do substantially the same thing.
However, a 2015 Yaris is fine for a 250 mile quick stint and probably as good as said Passat where as a Y-reg Yaris it would seem like a serious journey.
A 2000 Passat did much of what a 2015 one does - not saying there are not improvements but they do substantially the same thing.
However, a 2015 Yaris is fine for a 250 mile quick stint and probably as good as said Passat where as a Y-reg Yaris it would seem like a serious journey.
nickfrog said:
But it powered lighter cars then. I appreciate you struggle with more than one parameter and you have never ever been wrong though.
Not true. A current Mk 7 1.6 TDI 110 5-dr Golf weighs in at 1250Kg. A Mk 4 1.9 PD 115 5-dr came in at 1278Kg so it has actually got lighter.Welshbeef said:
RYH64E said:
I'm not sure that I'd agree, there have been huge changes in emission control systems and a significant improvement in fuel efficiency in the last 10 years, all at the cost of added complexity. Many of the modern diesels will average over 60mpg compared to maybe 40mpg just a few years ago, and the proliferation of dpf, egr, stop start, dual mass flywheels, high pressure direct injection, dual clutch gear boxes etc make modern cars a daunting prospect for the diy mechanic or impoverished 2nd/3rd/4th owners.
Oh I disagree the VW Punp Duse diesels were and still are drastically more thermo efficient than common rail. Back in the Mk4 Golf 1.9 Gt Tdi PD that would do mid 60's average and into the 70's. That's a 16 year old car Common rail sent efficiency backwards sadly. nickfrog said:
Welshbeef said:
Oh I disagree the VW Punp Duse diesels were and still are drastically more thermo efficient than common rail. Back in the Mk4 Golf 1.9 Gt Tdi PD that would do mid 60's average and into the 70's. That's a 16 year old car Common rail sent efficiency backwards sadly.
But it powered lighter cars then. I appreciate you struggle with more than one parameter and you have never ever been wrong though.
. 1-0 to the Beef . What was the old 1995 1.9tdi (90bhp) A4? Was that PD or earlier?
I managed to get back to Norwich from St. Tropez on a single tank in one of those, was stuck at 60mph for most of the journey, no air con in that car, but it did the 950 miles. Maybe a little less as I filled up on the Autoroute just after we left, but close to 900 miles from 65 litres. Worked out around 62mpg from memory.
I don't think I have had a car that has bettered that.
They seem to be getting closer again, but every time a new gearbox, engine etc. is put into a new car the euro emissions tat that they have to comply to reduces mpg.
I managed to get back to Norwich from St. Tropez on a single tank in one of those, was stuck at 60mph for most of the journey, no air con in that car, but it did the 950 miles. Maybe a little less as I filled up on the Autoroute just after we left, but close to 900 miles from 65 litres. Worked out around 62mpg from memory.
I don't think I have had a car that has bettered that.
They seem to be getting closer again, but every time a new gearbox, engine etc. is put into a new car the euro emissions tat that they have to comply to reduces mpg.
Hungrymc said:
They seem to claim circa 52mpg for a 1220KG mk4 1.9 TdiPD and 83mpg for a 1205Kg mk7 1.6 Tdi
That old PD engine was economical (and powerful) but I've driven plenty of more impressive modern engines.
Not driven the new one but would be interested to see if people frequently best that 83mpg and actually hit and maybe beat the extra urban cycle. That old PD engine was economical (and powerful) but I've driven plenty of more impressive modern engines.
Hungrymc said:
They seem to claim circa 52mpg for a 1220KG mk4 1.9 TdiPD and 83mpg for a 1205Kg mk7 1.6 Tdi
That old PD engine was economical (and powerful) but I've driven plenty of more impressive modern engines.
Not driven the new one but would be interested to see if people frequently best that 83mpg and actually hit and maybe beat the extra urban cycle. That old PD engine was economical (and powerful) but I've driven plenty of more impressive modern engines.
gizlaroc said:
What was the old 1995 1.9tdi (90bhp) A4? Was that PD or earlier?
I managed to get back to Norwich from St. Tropez on a single tank in one of those, was stuck at 60mph for most of the journey, no air con in that car, but it did the 950 miles. Maybe a little less as I filled up on the Autoroute just after we left, but close to 900 miles from 65 litres. Worked out around 62mpg from memory.
I don't think I have had a car that has bettered that.
They seem to be getting closer again, but every time a new gearbox, engine etc. is put into a new car the euro emissions tat that they have to comply to reduces mpg.
No that was the mk3. I managed to get back to Norwich from St. Tropez on a single tank in one of those, was stuck at 60mph for most of the journey, no air con in that car, but it did the 950 miles. Maybe a little less as I filled up on the Autoroute just after we left, but close to 900 miles from 65 litres. Worked out around 62mpg from memory.
I don't think I have had a car that has bettered that.
They seem to be getting closer again, but every time a new gearbox, engine etc. is put into a new car the euro emissions tat that they have to comply to reduces mpg.
Some early ml4 had non PD engines but the first were the 115bhp 1.9's which changed to the well known 130 & 150's. But the 115bhp revd lower at 70mph than the other two in 6th. That put it just before it boosted up. The other two were less economical too.
A good few years ago I had a Mk3 Golf 1.9 non-turbo and was stuck on a drive from London to Cork in fuel miser mode, I had some euros on me but wasn't sure where I could exchange them. I made it from London to Wexford on a small amount of fuel by sticking to 60mph most of the way, certainly 80mpg+ but it was very dull while nerve racking at the same time. Driven flat out it would still return 50+ mpg.
Welshbeef said:
nickfrog said:
Welshbeef said:
Oh I disagree the VW Punp Duse diesels were and still are drastically more thermo efficient than common rail. Back in the Mk4 Golf 1.9 Gt Tdi PD that would do mid 60's average and into the 70's. That's a 16 year old car Common rail sent efficiency backwards sadly.
But it powered lighter cars then. I appreciate you struggle with more than one parameter and you have never ever been wrong though.. 1-0 to the Beef . Hungrymc said:
They seem to claim circa 52mpg for a 1220KG mk4 1.9 TdiPD and 83mpg for a 1205Kg mk7 1.6 Tdi
That old PD engine was economical (and powerful) but I've driven plenty of more impressive modern engines.
Problem is, modern cars are now geared to be the most economical at 33mph, the extra urban cruising speed. That old PD engine was economical (and powerful) but I've driven plenty of more impressive modern engines.
Look at some of the old brochures, you would get urban, 56mph and 70mph mpg figures, and usually there was very little difference between urban and 70mph, which is still true today.
Look in the "My Dad had one of those.." thread to see examples.
It is easy to design a modern diesel to do 80mpg at 33mpg, not so easy to design one to do that at 80mph/130kph, but then why would you anyway if the figures customers see is based on 33mph cruising?
gizlaroc said:
Problem is, modern cars are now geared to be the most economical at 33mph, the extra urban cruising speed.
Look at some of the old brochures, you would get urban, 56mph and 70mph mpg figures, and usually there was very little difference between urban and 70mph, which is still true today.
Look in the "My Dad had one of those.." thread to see examples.
It is easy to design a modern diesel to do 80mpg at 33mpg, not so easy to design one to do that at 80mph/130kph, but then why would you anyway if the figures customers see is based on 33mph cruising?
Yep, I understand. I'm just a bit surprised that people don't think economy has improved (even if it falls short of the claimed figures). It's also due to more complex auto gear boxes with wider spread of ratios that are programmed for efficiency. We do have lots of C/D segment cars now that will cruise on the motorway at high 60s mpg. I think it's impressive (doesn't make the PD engine bad).Look at some of the old brochures, you would get urban, 56mph and 70mph mpg figures, and usually there was very little difference between urban and 70mph, which is still true today.
Look in the "My Dad had one of those.." thread to see examples.
It is easy to design a modern diesel to do 80mpg at 33mpg, not so easy to design one to do that at 80mph/130kph, but then why would you anyway if the figures customers see is based on 33mph cruising?
bobbsie said:
RB Will said:
In short if done right bangernomics is nearly always going to be the cheaper alternative.
but I do encourage a lot of the bangernomics supporters to try spending a bit of time in a modern car as its fine justifying the argument on cost but you are only kidding yourself trying to say older cars are a nicer daily driver experience.
both points valid.but I do encourage a lot of the bangernomics supporters to try spending a bit of time in a modern car as its fine justifying the argument on cost but you are only kidding yourself trying to say older cars are a nicer daily driver experience.
Bangernomics may also, for some, be about the journey as well as the destination. Figuratively as well as literally.
older cars can be nicer DDs so long as they're reliable and offer some...
It's all a dead argument, you just choose what's right for the job. If I was schlepping up and down motorways and relied on my car for business, I would lease. If I got the train to work then I would see that as an excuse to get a naffing great V8. I would see spending hundreds a month to lease a dull appliance to do sub 10k pa nipping to the shops as mental but many do.
There are deciders as well. As someone who chucks a bike in my car, does DIY etc I would worry about getting clobbered for minor damage at the end of the lease so it wouldn't work for me.
SuperHangOn said:
bobbsie said:
RB Will said:
In short if done right bangernomics is nearly always going to be the cheaper alternative.
but I do encourage a lot of the bangernomics supporters to try spending a bit of time in a modern car as its fine justifying the argument on cost but you are only kidding yourself trying to say older cars are a nicer daily driver experience.
both points valid.but I do encourage a lot of the bangernomics supporters to try spending a bit of time in a modern car as its fine justifying the argument on cost but you are only kidding yourself trying to say older cars are a nicer daily driver experience.
Bangernomics may also, for some, be about the journey as well as the destination. Figuratively as well as literally.
older cars can be nicer DDs so long as they're reliable and offer some...
It's all a dead argument, you just choose what's right for the job. If I was schlepping up and down motorways and relied on my car for business, I would lease. If I got the train to work then I would see that as an excuse to get a naffing great V8. I would see spending hundreds a month to lease a dull appliance to do sub 10k pa nipping to the shops as mental but many do.
There are deciders as well. As someone who chucks a bike in my car, does DIY etc I would worry about getting clobbered for minor damage at the end of the lease so it wouldn't work for me.
No rubbish gearing, DBW throttles or electric PAS.
I don't think a new Skoda etc. would give me anywhere near the same pleasure and joy as my E36 and W124. And I'm sorry but I just don't think a new car has the same level of feel, adjustability and even comfort on the road as something designed 20 years ago.
Those cars as well as my old DC2 are probably more reliable as well.
Each to their own and all that but for me the majority of newer stuff is just dull once you get past the fancy toys (which just add unnecessary weight and complexity).
SuperHangOn said:
I have the luxury of pool cars and occasionally rent new cars. My old thing is much nicer to roll around in.
It's all a dead argument, you just choose what's right for the job. If I was schlepping up and down motorways and relied on my car for business, I would lease. If I got the train to work then I would see that as an excuse to get a naffing great V8. I would see spending hundreds a month to lease a dull appliance to do sub 10k pa nipping to the shops as mental but many do.
There are deciders as well. As someone who chucks a bike in my car, does DIY etc I would worry about getting clobbered for minor damage at the end of the lease so it wouldn't work for me.
Yep, I'd have to start being precious about it.It's all a dead argument, you just choose what's right for the job. If I was schlepping up and down motorways and relied on my car for business, I would lease. If I got the train to work then I would see that as an excuse to get a naffing great V8. I would see spending hundreds a month to lease a dull appliance to do sub 10k pa nipping to the shops as mental but many do.
There are deciders as well. As someone who chucks a bike in my car, does DIY etc I would worry about getting clobbered for minor damage at the end of the lease so it wouldn't work for me.
Leasing small cars makes sense if you can manage with one, but can anyone find me a 7 seat 4x4 for sensible money. Or a half decent estate I can fit three kids in in car seats.
confused_buyer said:
nickfrog said:
But it powered lighter cars then. I appreciate you struggle with more than one parameter and you have never ever been wrong though.
Not true. A current Mk 7 1.6 TDI 110 5-dr Golf weighs in at 1250Kg. A Mk 4 1.9 PD 115 5-dr came in at 1278Kg so it has actually got lighter.SuperHangOn said:
I have the luxury of pool cars and occasionally rent new cars. My old thing is much nicer to roll around in.
It's all a dead argument, you just choose what's right for the job. If I was schlepping up and down motorways and relied on my car for business, I would lease. If I got the train to work then I would see that as an excuse to get a naffing great V8. I would see spending hundreds a month to lease a dull appliance to do sub 10k pa nipping to the shops as mental but many do.
There are deciders as well. As someone who chucks a bike in my car, does DIY etc I would worry about getting clobbered for minor damage at the end of the lease so it wouldn't work for me.
The car that you like to roll around in was a new car once, if you can afford it and can reconcile it in your own financial plan, why not? I'm not trying to claim that new cars are cheaper, they're not. But for some people there is value in being in the car you specified and it being fresh and new.It's all a dead argument, you just choose what's right for the job. If I was schlepping up and down motorways and relied on my car for business, I would lease. If I got the train to work then I would see that as an excuse to get a naffing great V8. I would see spending hundreds a month to lease a dull appliance to do sub 10k pa nipping to the shops as mental but many do.
There are deciders as well. As someone who chucks a bike in my car, does DIY etc I would worry about getting clobbered for minor damage at the end of the lease so it wouldn't work for me.
Pool cars and rentals are also rarely nice examples so may not be a good comparison. The 'appliance' argument is also a strange one as its used as a bit of an insult. The vast majority of people are not enthusiasts, others who are enthusiats will have company car or car allowance constraints etc that force them into an 'appliance'. It isn't right for everyone but it's flawed thinking to assume it's 'wrong'.
I'm not pedaling either side of the debate as being right (I have old cars and a new car for different jobs). Your point about it being a dead argument is 100% correct.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff