Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
ORD said:
Am I taking crazy pills?
OP wants a cheapish second-hand car to do very short journeys. And people are banging on about brand new diesels for long journeys and far far more miles than the OP drives.
Petrol is so obviously the right choice for him. No idea why the diesel lovers have to argue that a granny doing 3 miles a week in town should go for an Audi 2.0d that does 80mpg in lab conditions and would save her 7p a week in fuel (but cost £3k more to buy).
I agree with the sentiment, but I think you must be on the crazy pills tonight cause....OP wants a cheapish second-hand car to do very short journeys. And people are banging on about brand new diesels for long journeys and far far more miles than the OP drives.
Petrol is so obviously the right choice for him. No idea why the diesel lovers have to argue that a granny doing 3 miles a week in town should go for an Audi 2.0d that does 80mpg in lab conditions and would save her 7p a week in fuel (but cost £3k more to buy).
Ollie123 said:
I’m trying to buy an expensive sporty saloon but they are all diesels.
First car on the list was a Panamera but the 3 main dealers I rang had nothing but diesels available.
First car on the list was a Panamera but the 3 main dealers I rang had nothing but diesels available.
gizlaroc said:
I should just add to that.
I was considering a small every day car to run along side an XK-R or 911.
I looked that the Q3 and the A3 sportback.
The Q3 was £70 a month cheaper on the petrol and the A3 was £55 a month cheaper going petrol.
Doing 12k miles a year the rough price of fuel for either was only £120 a month. This made the petrol the cheaper option by quite some margin as 50% of my fuel was free going petrol based on the monthly price save on the car in the first place.
Yet still the guy at Audi couldn't get his head round this.
No sI was considering a small every day car to run along side an XK-R or 911.
I looked that the Q3 and the A3 sportback.
The Q3 was £70 a month cheaper on the petrol and the A3 was £55 a month cheaper going petrol.
Doing 12k miles a year the rough price of fuel for either was only £120 a month. This made the petrol the cheaper option by quite some margin as 50% of my fuel was free going petrol based on the monthly price save on the car in the first place.
Yet still the guy at Audi couldn't get his head round this.
t the guy at Audi couldn't get his head around that?A f
king rocket scientist could not make sense of that bks you have just written, let alone a lowly paid salesman with a GCSE in English.Ares said:
"Seriously damaging"? We're talking cancer level mortality rates? Define and explain "Seriously damaging"?
"Not get materially better mpg?. I get c46mpg out of a 3-litre 380bhp diesel. My wife gets c30mpg from a 1.6l Mini driven locally like Miss Daisy. When she had a diesel mini for a week, she averaged 57mpg.
"Cost much more". How much does ANY new car cost when it goes wrong? Zero, for 3-7yrs, it's covered by a warranty. Beyond that, since when are diesels more expensive/more likely to go wrong? Or is this the DPF scare that every talks about but very few seem to experience?
But regardless, none of the above make a petrol MORE suitable?
No. It's makes them more fun. Diesels don't rev, sound crap and are generally wrapped up in very dreary cars. 380HP, yes but from a big old lump of a car coupled to a slushbox no doubt. As you mentioned cancer, when 1/3 of us is lying there pumped full of end of life drugs are you really going to be worried about how much you saved driving an efficient (but crap) car?"Not get materially better mpg?. I get c46mpg out of a 3-litre 380bhp diesel. My wife gets c30mpg from a 1.6l Mini driven locally like Miss Daisy. When she had a diesel mini for a week, she averaged 57mpg.
"Cost much more". How much does ANY new car cost when it goes wrong? Zero, for 3-7yrs, it's covered by a warranty. Beyond that, since when are diesels more expensive/more likely to go wrong? Or is this the DPF scare that every talks about but very few seem to experience?
But regardless, none of the above make a petrol MORE suitable?
jjr1 said:
gizlaroc said:
I should just add to that.
I was considering a small every day car to run along side an XK-R or 911.
I looked that the Q3 and the A3 sportback.
The Q3 was £70 a month cheaper on the petrol and the A3 was £55 a month cheaper going petrol.
Doing 12k miles a year the rough price of fuel for either was only £120 a month. This made the petrol the cheaper option by quite some margin as 50% of my fuel was free going petrol based on the monthly price save on the car in the first place.
Yet still the guy at Audi couldn't get his head round this.
No sI was considering a small every day car to run along side an XK-R or 911.
I looked that the Q3 and the A3 sportback.
The Q3 was £70 a month cheaper on the petrol and the A3 was £55 a month cheaper going petrol.
Doing 12k miles a year the rough price of fuel for either was only £120 a month. This made the petrol the cheaper option by quite some margin as 50% of my fuel was free going petrol based on the monthly price save on the car in the first place.
Yet still the guy at Audi couldn't get his head round this.
t the guy at Audi couldn't get his head around that?A f
king rocket scientist could not make sense of that bks you have just written, let alone a lowly paid salesman with a GCSE in English.
jjr1 said:
No st the guy at Audi couldn't get his head around that?
A fking rocket scientist could not make sense of that bks you have just written, let alone a lowly paid salesman with a GCSE in English.
Thanks. t the guy at Audi couldn't get his head around that?A f
king rocket scientist could not make sense of that bks you have just written, let alone a lowly paid salesman with a GCSE in English.Fuel for 12k miles a year was £120 a month for either petrol or diesel. (1.30 a litre at the time).
Petrol car is approx. £60 a month cheaper to buy.
Why the f
k I would I buy the diesel?Sportback as example....
A3 Sportback 2.0tdi was £245 a month, 1.4Tfsi was £190 a month.
Both do 44 MPG, actual, tested over two days and same 90 mile round trip.
So fuel would be £105 a month at todays prices.
I have a £55 a month fuel contribution with what I save buying the petrol car, over half my fuel is paid for before we start.
Absolutely no reason what so ever to buy diesel, it would cost me approx. £55 a month more to run, or 18% more.
Think the thread were someone says their mate has a £63k Audi A6 2.0 tdi ultra sums it up well I will have 25k plus of options on the 2.0 Tdi as c02 and keeping the tax liability down is main consideration when getting a car.
Labour government turn rational car running /ownership into a diesel tax liability game. As a result people who don't do the miles bought a diesel and petrol station are rare in some makes and models leaving out cities full of nitrogen and children with breathing difficulties due to small particulates.
Labour government turn rational car running /ownership into a diesel tax liability game. As a result people who don't do the miles bought a diesel and petrol station are rare in some makes and models leaving out cities full of nitrogen and children with breathing difficulties due to small particulates.
Ares said:
ORD said:
Ares said:
1) I think most people have made up their mind well before they walk into a showroom. Salesmen are not that good...
2) How is a petrol engine MORE suitable than a like-for-like diesel? At smaller mileages you may not reap the full benefit of an oil burner....but that doesn't make it LESS suitable?
Of course it is. It will be seriously damaging to the health of people in the vicinity of its use. It will not get materially better mpg. It will cost much more to fix when it goes wrong. 2) How is a petrol engine MORE suitable than a like-for-like diesel? At smaller mileages you may not reap the full benefit of an oil burner....but that doesn't make it LESS suitable?
Unless you do lots of miles, it's an irrational choice. If you do lots of miles, it's merely a selfish choice.
"Not get materially better mpg?. I get c46mpg out of a 3-litre 380bhp diesel. My wife gets c30mpg from a 1.6l Mini driven locally like Miss Daisy. When she had a diesel mini for a week, she averaged 57mpg.
"Cost much more". How much does ANY new car cost when it goes wrong? Zero, for 3-7yrs, it's covered by a warranty. Beyond that, since when are diesels more expensive/more likely to go wrong? Or is this the DPF scare that every talks about but very few seem to experience?
But regardless, none of the above make a petrol MORE suitable?
But apparently I'm the selfish type as I do a 120 mile round trip every day and my choice of diesel is a bad one. I get 54mpg if driven sensibly from a 208bhp 2 litre diesel, and with diesel selling for 69.4p, and petrol at 80.4p, I'm rather smug at being selfish.
gizlaroc said:
That is the problem. Too many people compare a modern diesel with an older petrol. Compare the equivalent now and there is bugger all in it.
335d vs 340i is about 7 mpg difference. For someone doing 12k miles a year around £12-14 a week difference in fuel.
You're utterly wrong. I don't know where you got your numbers from but these are the actual BMW figures (both 2015 F30 models):335d vs 340i is about 7 mpg difference. For someone doing 12k miles a year around £12-14 a week difference in fuel.
340i - 28.2/47.9/38.2 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
335d xDrive - 44.1/57.6/52.3 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
That's a 14.1mpg difference, and lets not talk about the other numbers. You're way out. It makes me question the rest of your numbers....
jbsportstech said:
Think the thread were someone says their mate has a £63k Audi A6 2.0 tdi ultra sums it up well I will have 25k plus of options on the 2.0 Tdi as c02 and keeping the tax liability down is main consideration when getting a car.
Labour government turn rational car running /ownership into a diesel tax liability game. As a result people who don't do the miles bought a diesel and petrol station are rare in some makes and models leaving out cities full of nitrogen and children with breathing difficulties due to small particulates.
Be aware that direct injection petrol engines generate particulate as well as diesel engines, their smaller size and less stricht regulation even in EU6 makes their negative effects on health potentially more dangerous because less knownLabour government turn rational car running /ownership into a diesel tax liability game. As a result people who don't do the miles bought a diesel and petrol station are rare in some makes and models leaving out cities full of nitrogen and children with breathing difficulties due to small particulates.
Let's play a mind game...
Imagine, for a moment, that petrol was free (and diesel didn't exist).
What cars would be made and what would we buy?
Luxury GT: Big V12.
Medium exec (5/A6): I'd have a 5 to 7 litre V8 with only about 330 hp attached to an auto box. Wall of torque!
Sports: High revving N/A straight/flat six. Tuned for high end power. Manual 'box.
Cheap hatch: inexpensive inline 4, low tech. So maybe 2L?
All we are doing is choosing engines that suit the intended use of the car.
Now, make fuel really expensive and we start to compromise.
Luxury GT: These are seriously expensive, so no compromise needed.
Medium exec: The twin turbo 6 cyl diesel wrapped in 4 duvets approximates the characteristics of the massive V8. Nobody wants to have to rev a medium exec hard, so no need for a petrol.
Sports: No one wants the sound and characteristics of a diesel in a sports car, so stick with the high revving petrol.
Cheap hatch: spend some money on the IL4 and make it smaller, lighter, more efficient - but balancing that with the purchase price. You normally end up with a petrol, especially if the mileage is typical of the intended use of the car.
So.. The reason people buy big diesel barges is because the really good big diesel engines suit the barges nicely. They are a nice compromise of the lazy V8s that we'd all really like.
What doesn't make sense to me:
Buying a medium exec and wanting it to be a sports car.
Buying a sports car with a diesel engine.
3/A4/C/XE size cars. A barge but not big enough to be a good barge. Sporty connotations, but not sporty in the slightest. Too small to be useful, too large and heavy to be fun. Put a big diesel in and they sound rough. Put a big petrol in and they try to be sporty and fail. Maybe this is just me.
Exceptions where I can see the point:
Warm diesel hatches. Quick, frugal, not sporty though. Can be like a half price medium exec - ideal for the hard of hearing.
2L inline 4 diesel medium execs. Dreadful. But if you need to do 100,000 miles a year on the motorway and you want the comfort on the least £ then fair enough.
In summary - the engine that most suits the 5/A6/E/XF is the under tuned huge V8. In the absence of a massive bag'o'cash, then we find the nearest equivalent which is a twin turbo diesel 6.
Imagine, for a moment, that petrol was free (and diesel didn't exist).
What cars would be made and what would we buy?
Luxury GT: Big V12.
Medium exec (5/A6): I'd have a 5 to 7 litre V8 with only about 330 hp attached to an auto box. Wall of torque!
Sports: High revving N/A straight/flat six. Tuned for high end power. Manual 'box.
Cheap hatch: inexpensive inline 4, low tech. So maybe 2L?
All we are doing is choosing engines that suit the intended use of the car.
Now, make fuel really expensive and we start to compromise.
Luxury GT: These are seriously expensive, so no compromise needed.
Medium exec: The twin turbo 6 cyl diesel wrapped in 4 duvets approximates the characteristics of the massive V8. Nobody wants to have to rev a medium exec hard, so no need for a petrol.
Sports: No one wants the sound and characteristics of a diesel in a sports car, so stick with the high revving petrol.
Cheap hatch: spend some money on the IL4 and make it smaller, lighter, more efficient - but balancing that with the purchase price. You normally end up with a petrol, especially if the mileage is typical of the intended use of the car.
So.. The reason people buy big diesel barges is because the really good big diesel engines suit the barges nicely. They are a nice compromise of the lazy V8s that we'd all really like.
What doesn't make sense to me:
Buying a medium exec and wanting it to be a sports car.
Buying a sports car with a diesel engine.
3/A4/C/XE size cars. A barge but not big enough to be a good barge. Sporty connotations, but not sporty in the slightest. Too small to be useful, too large and heavy to be fun. Put a big diesel in and they sound rough. Put a big petrol in and they try to be sporty and fail. Maybe this is just me.
Exceptions where I can see the point:
Warm diesel hatches. Quick, frugal, not sporty though. Can be like a half price medium exec - ideal for the hard of hearing.
2L inline 4 diesel medium execs. Dreadful. But if you need to do 100,000 miles a year on the motorway and you want the comfort on the least £ then fair enough.
In summary - the engine that most suits the 5/A6/E/XF is the under tuned huge V8. In the absence of a massive bag'o'cash, then we find the nearest equivalent which is a twin turbo diesel 6.
gizlaroc said:
Devil2575 said:
It will not get materially better MPG It gets 50+ mpg. Compared to the equivalent petrol model that my wife ran a few years ago it gets rougly 50% better mpg.
That is the problem. Too many people compare a modern diesel with an older petrol. apotts said:
What doesn't make sense to me:
3/A4/C/XE size cars. A barge but not big enough to be a good barge. Sporty connotations, but not sporty in the slightest. Too small to be useful, too large and heavy to be fun. Put a big diesel in and they sound rough. Put a big petrol in and they try to be sporty and fail. Maybe this is just me.
It's not just you. The most recent NA M3 has one of the finest petrol V8's I have used but what it is not is a sports car. The weight of it, despite being very well controlled is ever present. As a GT it is absolutely immense. I went out in a Caterham last night and it reminded me of what a sports car actually is and what it does to you 3/A4/C/XE size cars. A barge but not big enough to be a good barge. Sporty connotations, but not sporty in the slightest. Too small to be useful, too large and heavy to be fun. Put a big diesel in and they sound rough. Put a big petrol in and they try to be sporty and fail. Maybe this is just me.
Devil2575 said:
gizlaroc said:
Devil2575 said:
It will not get materially better MPG It gets 50+ mpg. Compared to the equivalent petrol model that my wife ran a few years ago it gets rougly 50% better mpg.
That is the problem. Too many people compare a modern diesel with an older petrol. yonex said:
apotts said:
What doesn't make sense to me:
3/A4/C/XE size cars. A barge but not big enough to be a good barge. Sporty connotations, but not sporty in the slightest. Too small to be useful, too large and heavy to be fun. Put a big diesel in and they sound rough. Put a big petrol in and they try to be sporty and fail. Maybe this is just me.
It's not just you. The most recent NA M3 has one of the finest petrol V8's I have used but what it is not is a sports car. The weight of it, despite being very well controlled is ever present. As a GT it is absolutely immense. I went out in a Caterham last night and it reminded me of what a sports car actually is and what it does to you 3/A4/C/XE size cars. A barge but not big enough to be a good barge. Sporty connotations, but not sporty in the slightest. Too small to be useful, too large and heavy to be fun. Put a big diesel in and they sound rough. Put a big petrol in and they try to be sporty and fail. Maybe this is just me.
beanbag said:
You're utterly wrong. I don't know where you got your numbers from but these are the actual BMW figures (both 2015 F30 models):
340i - 28.2/47.9/38.2 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
335d xDrive - 44.1/57.6/52.3 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
That's a 14.1mpg difference, and lets not talk about the other numbers. You're way out. It makes me question the rest of your numbers....
Except those figures are rarely achievable. Audi claim my 1.4 TFSI can do 61 mpg combined, in reality it's more like 40, 45 if I go easy on the fast pedal.340i - 28.2/47.9/38.2 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
335d xDrive - 44.1/57.6/52.3 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
That's a 14.1mpg difference, and lets not talk about the other numbers. You're way out. It makes me question the rest of your numbers....
I tend to base the figures on Fuelly which gives you a much better idea of real world economy, in which case you get the following figures:
335i (no data for 340i yet) - average of ~29.5 mpg
335d - average of ~37 mpg
So in reality you can expect the 335d to get about 7 mpg more than the 335i.
12,000 miles at 29.5 mpg = 1849 litres
12,000 miles at 37 mpg = 1474 litres
So over the course of the year, the diesel will save you 375 litres - a saving of around £412.50 (~£34 a month). Of course, the 335d costs just over £2000 more to buy so ultimately over a 4 year lease or PCP, you'll be £400 better off with the petrol; of course that figure doesn't include depreciation and it may be that the 335d depreciates less than the 340i.
If you gave me the choice though, I think I'd take the 340i any day of the year. Even if it does work out more - it's going to be relatively marginal, and you'll have a whole lot more fun driving it.
cerb4.5lee said:
I echo this too and excluding the M3 I have never really understood why the 3 series is classed as a sports saloon as its nothing of the sort regardless of what engine it has under the bonnet, a good motorway cruiser it is and as you say its weight ruins any fun that could be had.
Sport is the modifier. The car is a saloon. In other words, it is an apt description.
scherzkeks said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I echo this too and excluding the M3 I have never really understood why the 3 series is classed as a sports saloon as its nothing of the sort regardless of what engine it has under the bonnet, a good motorway cruiser it is and as you say its weight ruins any fun that could be had.
Sport is the modifier. The car is a saloon. In other words, it is an apt description.
Toonshorty said:
beanbag said:
You're utterly wrong. I don't know where you got your numbers from but these are the actual BMW figures (both 2015 F30 models):
340i - 28.2/47.9/38.2 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
335d xDrive - 44.1/57.6/52.3 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
That's a 14.1mpg difference, and lets not talk about the other numbers. You're way out. It makes me question the rest of your numbers....
Except those figures are rarely achievable. Audi claim my 1.4 TFSI can do 61 mpg combined, in reality it's more like 40, 45 if I go easy on the fast pedal.340i - 28.2/47.9/38.2 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
335d xDrive - 44.1/57.6/52.3 UK MPG urban/extra-urban/combined
That's a 14.1mpg difference, and lets not talk about the other numbers. You're way out. It makes me question the rest of your numbers....
I tend to base the figures on Fuelly which gives you a much better idea of real world economy, in which case you get the following figures:
335i (no data for 340i yet) - average of ~29.5 mpg
335d - average of ~37 mpg
So in reality you can expect the 335d to get about 7 mpg more than the 335i.
12,000 miles at 29.5 mpg = 1849 litres
12,000 miles at 37 mpg = 1474 litres
So over the course of the year, the diesel will save you 375 litres - a saving of around £412.50 (~£34 a month). Of course, the 335d costs just over £2000 more to buy so ultimately over a 4 year lease or PCP, you'll be £400 better off with the petrol; of course that figure doesn't include depreciation and it may be that the 335d depreciates less than the 340i.
If you gave me the choice though, I think I'd take the 340i any day of the year. Even if it does work out more - it's going to be relatively marginal, and you'll have a whole lot more fun driving it.
My 116d was even more economical, easily reaching 61mpg on the same commute on the quoted 64mpg figure.
In case you're wondering, my commute involves a mountain road descent from 400m with some twisty 15 degree gradients, some urban driving, then a heavily congested dual carriage way at 100km/h, then some clear motorway driving at 125km/h, finishing up with a little urban driving and some short dual carriage ways. (And then the same home but backwards). It's a tough route for any car and demonstrates how efficient these modern diesels are.
I've done the same route in a Peugeot 208 with a friend of mine (1.2 litre), and apart from being a total piece of s
t, we managed a measly 34mpg on the same route and I can tell you now he was not pushing it!So lets compare!
My car. BMW F31 320d M Sport Auto. 54mpg over 120 miles. Diesel costs me €1.20 for V Power Diesel. (I can also buy it in Gib for 69.4p but I rarely drive in).
My daily commute therefore costs me.....€11.20!
Now lets do the same in the s
t bag Peugeot. 34mpg, 120 miles, but petrol here costs more. I'll also use cheap-ass non V-Power fuel as this is what my friend had. Your's for €1.24 per litre.That drive cost......€19.69
Ouch! That's €8.49 more per day!
So work out the maths. I do this trip daily during the week and being fair, I'll knock off my 34 days of holiday. That's 226 days of commuting.
226 * €8.49 = €1,918.74 per year saved in fuel costs.
Now lets work that out in car costs.
My BMW cost me €34k. The Peugeot here in Spain is about €18k.
I plan to keep my car for about 5 years so lets work out the savings over 5 years....€9,593.70.
So in 5 years, my car will be worth about €20k here in Spain. (They keep their value in this part of the world and M Sports are rare and sought after - even with high mileage).
The Peugeot will be worth about €8k...give or take....but remember I've saved about €10k in fuel! So I would have been in the negative had I bought the Peugeot, whereas with my BMW, I'm saving.
To to conclude, the point I'm trying to make is each car is unique and has its purpose. If you don't like diesels, suit yourself but for me it works brilliantly. And how I've had it remapped, I have more HP and better fuel economy so my savings will be even higher.
Yes, they sound a bit s
t idle, but they sound just fine on the move and you wouldn't have a clue about the rev limit if I renumbered your tachometer. You wouldn't have a clue, and even less so with the ZF-8 gearbox. (Which is epic).Anyway. Just dispelling more bulls
t from more ignorant people.jbsportstech said:
Think the thread were someone says their mate has a £63k Audi A6 2.0 tdi ultra sums it up well I will have 25k plus of options on the 2.0 Tdi as c02 and keeping the tax liability down is main consideration when getting a car.
As I said on the thread to which you refer - this makes no sense. Tax liability is proportional to cost as well as CO2, so adding £25k worth of options will raise the tax liability considerably. You're just paying tax on the options, instead of tax on the CO2.BIK on £60k list car in 20% CO2 bracket = BIK on £40k list car in 30% CO2 bracket
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff