Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
marmitemania said:
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
danlightbulb said:
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?
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.
Diesels cost more to buy, so at average mileage you need 2 years of ownership before starting to break even.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.
hing and buy a superchargered jagI have two cars.
I have a diesel Golf. Mk 5, 10 years old. It's the 2 litre 140hp lump. I commute 100 miles a day in it at ~60mpg. It is quiet & effortless to drive. It cruises at motorway speeds 6th at a very low rpm, I don't need to constantly change gear and you get out after a long drive feeling as fresh as when you got in.
It is not a fun car to drive, but it is comfortable and easy. I would not want a petrol engine in a car for this use.
I also have a petrol engined car. It has a high power to weight ratio and when you wring its neck it is hugely rewarding. Driving for fun is a lot of fun on small twisty roads, but cruising at motorway speeds is a buzzy, boring nightmare. I would not want a diesel engine in a car for this use.
Some people like diesel, some like petrol. Some people even like both, I believe its known as diversity. The world would be a dull place if everyone had the same opinion, so why waste time trying to convert people to your way of thinking? Live and let live, eh?
I have a diesel Golf. Mk 5, 10 years old. It's the 2 litre 140hp lump. I commute 100 miles a day in it at ~60mpg. It is quiet & effortless to drive. It cruises at motorway speeds 6th at a very low rpm, I don't need to constantly change gear and you get out after a long drive feeling as fresh as when you got in.
It is not a fun car to drive, but it is comfortable and easy. I would not want a petrol engine in a car for this use.
I also have a petrol engined car. It has a high power to weight ratio and when you wring its neck it is hugely rewarding. Driving for fun is a lot of fun on small twisty roads, but cruising at motorway speeds is a buzzy, boring nightmare. I would not want a diesel engine in a car for this use.
Some people like diesel, some like petrol. Some people even like both, I believe its known as diversity. The world would be a dull place if everyone had the same opinion, so why waste time trying to convert people to your way of thinking? Live and let live, eh?
I drove a Lexus IS200 for 12k pa for nearly 8 years that averaged about 28mpg. When i bought it i was single but half way through my ownership i got married and bought a house. Now between us we earned less than 40k and other than having to fill it up every 10 days being a petrol didnt bother us. I only got rid because it was 11 years old and wanted something newer and bigger for future mini me's. So people who are on enough money to qualify for a 50k+ company car should find anything over 20mpg a doddle, but we've all been brainwashed into anything less than 40mpg makes you evil. To be honest i picked my next car for the car rather than the engine, a Honda Accord Tourer Type S with a 180hp diesel, but decent spec Accord are quite rare so I bought what was available. Yes it is faster that my Lexus, and with the low end shove feels faster than my wifes 2.0 Mx5, but I do miss the silence when you pull up at a set of lights.
People are at in the marine world as well. I work in a boat dealer, and people would come in and order a 45k speed boat, that should have a minimum of a 270hp V8, but then spend an extra 10k for the privilege of a 190hp diesel. Boats tend to drop money quite quickly for the first couple of years, and speed boats tend to do less than 20hrs a year (often less than 10) so paying more to just put less fuel in on the couple of weekends a year they actually use the boat is madness.
People are at in the marine world as well. I work in a boat dealer, and people would come in and order a 45k speed boat, that should have a minimum of a 270hp V8, but then spend an extra 10k for the privilege of a 190hp diesel. Boats tend to drop money quite quickly for the first couple of years, and speed boats tend to do less than 20hrs a year (often less than 10) so paying more to just put less fuel in on the couple of weekends a year they actually use the boat is madness.
ive always wondered this with my boss who currently drives an X5 M50d. 3.0 Tri Turbo diesel power is stupendous to drive, but im guessing it doesn't have the ''Diesel MPG'' that one would assume so I can only question why he didn't buy the petrol X5M instead...beats me to this day!i know the petrol will deliver less miles, and be more on VED, and may suffer with residuals a bit more... but enough to justify buying the diesel version instead?
I like a fast car but I do 30,000 miles per annum.
You can't really have both without it costing a fair chunk of money more.
0-60 in under 5 seconds whenever I fancy it and 50mpg on my run down to Cardiff yesterday.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to run an M4 instead but that doesn't mean there's not an argument for fast, expensive diesel car.
You can't really have both without it costing a fair chunk of money more.
0-60 in under 5 seconds whenever I fancy it and 50mpg on my run down to Cardiff yesterday.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to run an M4 instead but that doesn't mean there's not an argument for fast, expensive diesel car.
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 !!!!!
I could afford to commute in an m5 if I wanted but I choose not to as it would be a waste of money. Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 1st September 14:28
irfan1712 said:
ive always wondered this with my boss who currently drives an X5 M50d. 3.0 Tri Turbo diesel power is stupendous to drive, but im guessing it doesn't have the ''Diesel MPG'' that one would assume so I can only question why he didn't buy the petrol X5M instead...beats me to this day!i know the petrol will deliver less miles, and be more on VED, and may suffer with residuals a bit more... but enough to justify buying the diesel version instead?
Because the M50d already has more power than you can sensibly use on the road. Neither car is a track day stormer. They are 'big lazy cruisers'. This means that the M50d, with it's massive torque will feel considerably quicker as a 'big lazy cruiser'. You will also fill up less and save some money on purchase and running costs.
Why pay more and fill up more for the X5M? Both are massively compromised compared to a proper sports car.
I ran a 335i for 5 years. Compared to the 335d the only real differences were the noise and the high revs. 335d would have felt quicker in most situations and would have cost less.
My current car is a BiTDi Audi A6. I compared it to the S6, but as with the BMW comparison above I would have been paying a lot more for a nicer soundtrack and performance I could not use.
Petrol makes sense in smaller sporty or enthusiast cars. Diesel is more appropriate for large cruisers.
Manual to auto gearbox is a far bigger compromise for an enthusiast IMO
Sump said:
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 !!!!!
I could afford to commute in an m5 if I wanted but I choose not to as it would be a waste of money. Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 1st September 14:28
Not wanting to do something is not the same as not being able to. Are you really that stupid to think otherwise?
Elysium said:
irfan1712 said:
ive always wondered this with my boss who currently drives an X5 M50d. 3.0 Tri Turbo diesel power is stupendous to drive, but im guessing it doesn't have the ''Diesel MPG'' that one would assume so I can only question why he didn't buy the petrol X5M instead...beats me to this day!i know the petrol will deliver less miles, and be more on VED, and may suffer with residuals a bit more... but enough to justify buying the diesel version instead?
Because the M50d already has more power than you can sensibly use on the road. Neither car is a track day stormer. They are 'big lazy cruisers'. This means that the M50d, with it's massive torque will feel considerably quicker as a 'big lazy cruiser'. You will also fill up less and save some money on purchase and running costs.
Why pay more and fill up more for the X5M? Both are massively compromised compared to a proper sports car.
I ran a 335i for 5 years. Compared to the 335d the only real differences were the noise and the high revs. 335d would have felt quicker in most situations and would have cost less.
My current car is a BiTDi Audi A6. I compared it to the S6, but as with the BMW comparison above I would have been paying a lot more for a nicer soundtrack and performance I could not use.
Petrol makes sense in smaller sporty or enthusiast cars. Diesel is more appropriate for large cruisers.
Manual to auto gearbox is a far bigger compromise for an enthusiast IMO
Ive just compared two 'performance' jeeps. granted their compromised, yes their tall heavy wobbley things, but they still exist and for whatever reason they do still appeal to people.
The M50d is a performance diesel...not a normal diesel engine. if a big wafty car suits a diesel then surely an X5 30d would suffice as that would have more than enough torque for everyday, off the track driving. Why pay more for the M50d if the 3.0d or even the smaller 25d does the job? As for cheaper at the pumps - I don't doubt this but negligible really. Diesel will no doubt rise at the pumps sooner or later rendering it even more of a compromise in a performance diesel engine.
Although In all fairness ive only just looked at the price difference.. £90k for an X5 with an engine more powerful than an M5 vs £65k for an M50d which makes them a bit less comparable than i thought.Hmm.
Edited by irfan1712 on Wednesday 2nd September 09:35
Edited by irfan1712 on Wednesday 2nd September 09:36
Ollie123 said:
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
And it isn't cheaper when you factor in BMW Finance.
MarshPhantom said:
Ares said:
As you say, sales figures speak volumes.
To a lot of people getting a diesel is a no brainer, that doesn't mean they're all correct.
Manufacturers care about sales. End of.
Ares said:
Ollie123 said:
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
And it isn't cheaper when you factor in BMW Finance.
Ollie123 said:
danlightbulb said:
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?
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.
Diesels cost more to buy, so at average mileage you need 2 years of ownership before starting to break even.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.
In a used car there is no price difference, diesels actually are cheaper and easier to find.
Don't get me wrong, i think petrol engines are better but the economic difference is so far in favour of the diesel at the moment, for most people who drive normal cars and normal distances.
danlightbulb said:
Ollie123 said:
danlightbulb said:
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?
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.
Diesels cost more to buy, so at average mileage you need 2 years of ownership before starting to break even.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.
In a used car there is no price difference, diesels actually are cheaper and easier to find.
Don't get me wrong, i think petrol engines are better but the economic difference is so far in favour of the diesel at the moment, for most people who drive normal cars and normal distances.
Back to the original post - BMW AU M5?
MattHall91 said:
It would be useful to factor in how much a petrol is worth to the owner in a more intangible way.
Back to the original post - BMW AU M5?
Salesman tried to sell me an M3/M4/M5 but I declined on the fact they are all so ugly to my eyes, also I dont want a car of that genre which uses the speakers to pump fake engine sounds into the cabin.Back to the original post - BMW AU M5?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff