Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
DJP said:
GroundEffect said:
...DPFs are run from putting extra fuel down the exhaust to heat the DPF. No other fluids are used.
Nope.Some of the more primitive ones do use a type of fuel called "Eolys" fluid which needs replenishing periodically.
Google it.
TurboHatchback said:
Ares said:
TurboHatchback said:
I agree entirely with the OP's sentiment, it utterly baffles me why anyone buys an expensive new diesel car (that isn't a large 4x4). Cheap diesels for those that require a new car but have limited budgets certainly make sense but a diesel £70k Porsche is nonsensical.
Why? Because someone who can afford to buy/finance a £70k they should have no regard for economics? Ares said:
Or should automatically prefer even inferior petrols engine variants?
No, but at that end of the market (and generally) the top performing engine in the range will be petrol, usually with a substantial performance margin over the lesser diesel models as well as all the subjective benefits. I know you bang on that your 640d is the second coming but I simply don't accept that a huge forced induction petrol engine wouldn't be better in every way bar fuel economy and if you're splurging a vast sum on the car itself who cares about that? Obviously second hand the story is very different but the topic is about buying new.Obviously my opinion is in a very small minority based on sales figures but it makes no sense to me.
Your second point is likewise wrong. If you compare the diesel to the top of the range petrol - yes it is likely to be left wanting (see my 640d Vs M6 analogy above). However, like for like the difference simply isn't there. I drove the 640d and 640i, back-to-back. Both use forced induction 3l straight sixes. You would struggle to get a more like-for-like example. The 640d is quicker and feels a lot quicker, costs less to run, is nicer and smoother to drive, suits the brilliant ZF gearbox better, does significantly more to the gallon (so less stops at a fuel station)...in fact quite in contrary to your statement, it is better in every way, with the exception of engine noise - but from inside you can hear neither 99% of the time, so it becomes a comparative non-issue.
As you say, sales figures speak volumes.
I did have a new M6 with the 4.4 turbo engine for a year, cabrio model. I actually preferred the 528 rental car I had on a week long business trip In the states (lots of driving). i even kind of preferred the 325d loan car I got from BMW, felt more responsive than the big lumbering M6 with its big turbos. However I think the petrol is so much classier, not that obviously M6 or M5s are very classy cars, but I think a nice 5 series with a smooth petrol engine is.
I like big diesels for high mileages - I'd quite happily take a 640d or 740d for heavy motorway work. I've been doing 1000 miles a week in petrols and filling up every other day and spending £300/week on fuel can get tedious even when cost isn't that big a deal. For all the derision met on PH, I think the diesel Panamera is probably a very nice car to do 200 miles a day in.
Ares said:
Your first point, you are wrong. Just because you can afford £70k, doesn't mean you ignore economics, even if your second point wasn't true. You may indeed find that people can afford £70k BECAUSE they consider economics, and have done previously.
Your second point is likewise wrong. If you compare the diesel to the top of the range petrol - yes it is likely to be left wanting (see my 640d Vs M6 analogy above). However, like for like the difference simply isn't there. I drove the 640d and 640i, back-to-back. Both use forced induction 3l straight sixes. You would struggle to get a more like-for-like example. The 640d is quicker and feels a lot quicker, costs less to run, is nicer and smoother to drive, suits the brilliant ZF gearbox better, does significantly more to the gallon (so less stops at a fuel station)...in fact quite in contrary to your statement, it is better in every way, with the exception of engine noise - but from inside you can hear neither 99% of the time, so it becomes a comparative non-issue.
As you say, sales figures speak volumes.
That is a load of tosh.Your second point is likewise wrong. If you compare the diesel to the top of the range petrol - yes it is likely to be left wanting (see my 640d Vs M6 analogy above). However, like for like the difference simply isn't there. I drove the 640d and 640i, back-to-back. Both use forced induction 3l straight sixes. You would struggle to get a more like-for-like example. The 640d is quicker and feels a lot quicker, costs less to run, is nicer and smoother to drive, suits the brilliant ZF gearbox better, does significantly more to the gallon (so less stops at a fuel station)...in fact quite in contrary to your statement, it is better in every way, with the exception of engine noise - but from inside you can hear neither 99% of the time, so it becomes a comparative non-issue.
As you say, sales figures speak volumes.
The 640d is not quicker, is not nicer nor smoother to drive, plus its more expensive to buy so there's that too.
The nicest thing I can say about the 640d engine is it feels like a petrol engine without any oil, the NVH which enter the cabin at idle are simply unacceptable on a car of that value.
Edited by Ollie123 on Tuesday 1st September 20:44
theboss said:
I like big diesels for high mileages - I'd quite happily take a 640d or 740d for heavy motorway work. I've been doing 1000 miles a week in petrols and filling up every other day and spending £300/week on fuel can get tedious even when cost isn't that big a deal. For all the derision met on PH, I think the diesel Panamera is probably a very nice car to do 200 miles a day in.
£300 a week cost isnt a big deal?I was spending £100 a week and not enjoying that one bit.
PTF said:
DJP said:
GroundEffect said:
...DPFs are run from putting extra fuel down the exhaust to heat the DPF. No other fluids are used.
Nope.Some of the more primitive ones do use a type of fuel called "Eolys" fluid which needs replenishing periodically.
Google it.
phib said:
Wills2 said:
So you can't tell the difference between a petrol 4.0V8 TT with 450hp and a diesel 3.0V6 TT with 320hp?
Not any discernible difference, your talking 320bhp 8 speed v 414 bhp 7 speed, on the road its negligible. I would go onto say that even these day a golf gti or GTD would keep up with most things ON THE ROAD, Golf or audi will certainly keep up with a Ferrari 550 (478bhp) or 355 (I know not on subject but fact)
Phib
Wills2 said:
Having re-read that I think a diesel is perfect for you....
Yep, given everything else we have, a daily 4wd 320bhp estate for 150 mile daily commute is perfect ! Having said that, since we have had it we've used it loads as its quick and fun especially in the current weather !
Phib
Slow said:
theboss said:
I like big diesels for high mileages - I'd quite happily take a 640d or 740d for heavy motorway work. I've been doing 1000 miles a week in petrols and filling up every other day and spending £300/week on fuel can get tedious even when cost isn't that big a deal. For all the derision met on PH, I think the diesel Panamera is probably a very nice car to do 200 miles a day in.
£300 a week cost isnt a big deal?I was spending £100 a week and not enjoying that one bit.
My point is that there are plenty of people who want a big, expensive comfortable barge and choose a diesel because the lower running costs are real, and substantial, not "a few hundred a year". There seems to be a perception here that people financing/leasing £70k diesel barges are financially distressed by a trip to the pumps or blinded by minuscule mpg savings. I suspect not in many cases - and I can see the logic and appeal in these machines for someone doing a lot of miles and wanting a high degree overall comfort and refinement whilst keeping running costs in check.
phib said:
Having had several petrol and diesel expensive diesels and owning 3 v8 petrol's and one v12 petrol (fun cars) I can only share my experience.
I had a 740d and have now moved to a a6 Bitdi, I looked at petrol's the 740i and s6 but when it came down to it the performance was negligible, really couldn't feel it on the road. In fact the diesels felt like they had more shove due to the turbo's.
It was the fuel that put me off, a combination of range and refilling but also the cost. I had the s6 on test and filled it up on average 2.5 times per week where as the a6 was once.
The figure were as follows and I defy anyone to be able to tell the difference on the road.
740i 0-60 5.7 (28mpg)
740d 0-60 6.1 (40mpg)
S6 0-60 4.5 (29mpg)
A6 0-60 5.1 (44mpg)
Just my 2p worth
Phib
agree with PhibI had a 740d and have now moved to a a6 Bitdi, I looked at petrol's the 740i and s6 but when it came down to it the performance was negligible, really couldn't feel it on the road. In fact the diesels felt like they had more shove due to the turbo's.
It was the fuel that put me off, a combination of range and refilling but also the cost. I had the s6 on test and filled it up on average 2.5 times per week where as the a6 was once.
The figure were as follows and I defy anyone to be able to tell the difference on the road.
740i 0-60 5.7 (28mpg)
740d 0-60 6.1 (40mpg)
S6 0-60 4.5 (29mpg)
A6 0-60 5.1 (44mpg)
Just my 2p worth
Phib
I had a E63 AMG and went for BMW535d to tow with. Fed up with filling up each week in the AMG. Drove a A6biT and liked that as well but got a great deal on px of my AMG with 535d. Shame the E63 could not tow. (legititamatly)
p1stonhead said:
marmitemania said:
I keep coming back to this same statement. 'Why do we not have diesel Bentley's and Rolls Royce's' ? I tell you why because no one would buy them. And don't say they are in a different league, we have diesel porsche's and Jaguar's that a not so much cheaper. DIE Diesel DIE !!!!!
'Proud to says I've never had a diesel' etc etc. really!? Has anyone ever said something so dull before? do you tell that to people out on dates as conversation pieces? 
For the record, I choose to drive a diesel as a daily. It gets me to work. I also have a petrol car but it costs a lot more to do a boring commute in. I could afford to commute in an m5 if I wanted but I choose not to as it would be a waste of money.
People want different things. It's not just because they can't afford to run a petrol. Get over it.
Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 1st September 14:28
theboss said:
Slow said:
theboss said:
I like big diesels for high mileages - I'd quite happily take a 640d or 740d for heavy motorway work. I've been doing 1000 miles a week in petrols and filling up every other day and spending £300/week on fuel can get tedious even when cost isn't that big a deal. For all the derision met on PH, I think the diesel Panamera is probably a very nice car to do 200 miles a day in.
£300 a week cost isnt a big deal?I was spending £100 a week and not enjoying that one bit.
My point is that there are plenty of people who want a big, expensive comfortable barge and choose a diesel because the lower running costs are real, and substantial, not "a few hundred a year". There seems to be a perception here that people financing/leasing £70k diesel barges are financially distressed by a trip to the pumps or blinded by minuscule mpg savings. I suspect not in many cases - and I can see the logic and appeal in these machines for someone doing a lot of miles and wanting a high degree overall comfort and refinement whilst keeping running costs in check.
I personally couldnt afford to run a 4.4 petrol version of my Range Rover. Would of easily become £200 a week in fuel. Considering I was working minimum wage, roughly £40 a day, the £100 I was spending on fuel was crippling, let alone my insurance + tax.
Of course this is different to buying a brand new version but the petrol v diesel argument is still valid at lower price points.
andrewparker said:
p1stonhead said:
'Proud to says I've never had a diesel' etc etc. really!? Has anyone ever said something so dull before?
Got to say, I've read some weird stuff on this forum but claiming you are proud to have never owned a diesel car rates among the strangest.
227bhp said:
This proves how much torque it produces on tickover and in turn, how much more relaxing it is to drive.
I own and drive both petrol and diesel, I use one for one job and the other to do a quite different job, they both excel in different ways.
Do you struggle to use a throttle pedal? Irrespective of the fact loads of modern petrols will do the same (accelerate through the gears on just the clutch, because even on the diesel, the engine opens the throttle automatically). I get the reasons why people like diesels, but the excuses offered are so often hokey. "I struggle with a throttle in traffic". "I don't like the petrol station" etc etc. I own and drive both petrol and diesel, I use one for one job and the other to do a quite different job, they both excel in different ways.
I'm more than happy to use a diesel van at work. I can only imagine a petrol van for a similar task would be pretty dire, because it's a big heavy van often with three people and kit on board. We are stuck with diesel cars too, which return a pretty poor economy round the doors and break quite often (the lowest recorded DPF issue I've seen was at 5,000 miles). It would make sense for us to have petrol cars and diesel vans, I can't see why that hasn't been figured out yet.
As for the buyers of expensive diesels, a lot of them appear to be company vehicles. Diesel fits in perfectly there, when you're buying for image and not for the car itself. Cheap tax, easy resale or more likely, a decent return at the end of the lease, and economy more important than driving dynamics. Look for a £50,000 performance car and you'll find plenty of choice in Porsche, Lotus etc etc. Look for a family car and you'll see loads of diesel. The fact that there are loads of Panamera diesels around makes sense because let's face it, it's a boulevard cruiser. If Mercedes did the unthinkable and released a diesel SL, you can bet it'd be the top seller as the poseurs who aren't bothered about driving flocked to it.
My f
king head hurts. How did we get around from the dawn of motoring until the late 1990's even early 2000's at a pinch. Oh yeah I remember now we drove petrol cars. Most people drive diesels because of the perceived savings and because the government told them to. Yes I agree they work when you do very high mileages in your repmobile but for anything else they are just a folly.
king head hurts. How did we get around from the dawn of motoring until the late 1990's even early 2000's at a pinch. Oh yeah I remember now we drove petrol cars. Most people drive diesels because of the perceived savings and because the government told them to. Yes I agree they work when you do very high mileages in your repmobile but for anything else they are just a folly. robemcdonald said:
Don't worry too much about diesels. Within 10 years you'll be saying the same thing about electric or hybrids. Its all driven by company cars and tax. Diesels will soon be taxed out of existence due to particulate emissions.
NOx emissions, not particulates 
.Managed Motorways will also be run at 50mph - or even 40 - even when the road is clear, for 16 hours a day within this timescale (certainly the M60 will be, no doubt others will follow); they will show 70 only when the traffic levels have fallen back mid-evening until the start of the next rush hour.
Technical fix vs. radical change... UK has a significant issue with higher-than-EU-limits roadside NOx levels; what other quick fix is there? (Rhetorical.)
You read it here first
.marmitemania said:
My fking head hurts. How did we get around from the dawn of motoring until the late 1990's even early 2000's at a pinch. Oh yeah I remember now we drove petrol cars. Most people drive diesels because of the perceived savings and because the government told them to. Yes I agree they work when you do very high mileages in your repmobile but for anything else they are just a folly.
Its not a perceived savings though, its absolutely real savings, week in week out. The against argument appears to be that diesels fail more. Is this real or is it a perception? Is there nothing on a petrol engine that can go wrong and cost a wedge of cash too?king head hurts. How did we get around from the dawn of motoring until the late 1990's even early 2000's at a pinch. Oh yeah I remember now we drove petrol cars. Most people drive diesels because of the perceived savings and because the government told them to. Yes I agree they work when you do very high mileages in your repmobile but for anything else they are just a folly. Compare a 45mpg diesel against a 30mpg petrol at 10k miles a year, which isn't particularly high. At £1.10 a litre, over 5 years the diesel will cost you £5,448 in fuel. The petrol will cost you £8,323, £2,875 MORE. You can get the DMF and DPF done for that, and would not expect only a 5 year life on these components. I don't understand the argument that the total cost of ownership is less with a petrol, with our high fuel costs.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff