My opinion on modern diesels. Do you agree?
Discussion
Terminator X said:
otolith said:
Devil2575 said:
The focus hasn't shifted, it's simply been recognised that both are important.
The law of unintended consequences has bitten them on the arse - they put into place policies intended to discourage the use of vehicles with high CO2 which pushed people into cars with high NOx. Saving the planet at the expense of urban air quality. I'm sceptical that nobody foresaw this, but suspect that they were not listened to.TX.
The problem is as car makers have to hit all the Euro 6 limits both Petrol & Diesels are getting overly complicated both have Turbos EGR's etc & both will have been made with penny pinching electronics.
You only have to look at the problems 335i's are having to see the problem isn't just with diesels.
You only have to look at the problems 335i's are having to see the problem isn't just with diesels.
stuart-b said:
I've owned both, it isn't gung ho it's based on facts. My diesel depreciated faster than I could spend the same amount on fuel. The difference in TCO of a 50 mpg and 35 mpg car (this engine will do a genuine 40 mpg on the motorway), is negligible. But I'm not doing 25k, and most people who buy these high performance diesels are not either. If you are in the 0-12k a year bracket, petrol makes more sense.
Yes, my point was that there does come a "tipping point" whereby no matter how nice a petrol car might be perceived to be, dumping loads of fuel into a car wears thing very quickly. And just for perspective, your average "decent" diesel these days can average 65mpg (certainly thats what i got week in week out from my 2012 golf 1.6TDI when i had it, so compare your 35mpg to 65mpg and you're not far off halving your fuel bill if you do big miles - that could be £400 a month on fuel as opposed to £200 a month. Personally i'd rather spend the £200 on other things.You cant have been comparing like with like with your diesel v petrol car, typically a diesel will depreciate less slowly than the equivalent petrl car.
stuart-b said:
Less than 12k a year, then you get the added expense of the fuel, running costs and genuine crap sound for no real benefit - if you are doing a genuine 25k+ a year, then any car will lose a huge amount of value regardless. In that instance get a blue motion golf/passat and drive it into the ground.
If you took a 325i/330i or equiv. vs a 320d/325d, the petrol will on average be £2k-£4k less (second hand-09/12 plate). 12k miles in the diesel is very roughly £1270 (50 mpg average, although my 320d was 42 average with town). Petrol at 30 mpg average will cost 2k per year. An apparent saving of ~£700 per year. On face value that seems great, although it would take over 5 years to break even with the extra cost of the diesel. In 5 years both cars are worth considerably less. You've also had 5 years of DPF and high pressure diesel. In all likelihood you would have to replace the DPF and/or something else expensive. Due to the prices of the cars (assuming used, not leased), in this instance, due to the petrol being perceived as less attractive, it's a myth that the diesel is cheaper for a considerable number of commuters.
For new/leased cars this isn't so applicable.
Oh aye, you're preaching to the converted. Less than even 18K a year and you're better off in a petrol car than in a new age diesel.If you took a 325i/330i or equiv. vs a 320d/325d, the petrol will on average be £2k-£4k less (second hand-09/12 plate). 12k miles in the diesel is very roughly £1270 (50 mpg average, although my 320d was 42 average with town). Petrol at 30 mpg average will cost 2k per year. An apparent saving of ~£700 per year. On face value that seems great, although it would take over 5 years to break even with the extra cost of the diesel. In 5 years both cars are worth considerably less. You've also had 5 years of DPF and high pressure diesel. In all likelihood you would have to replace the DPF and/or something else expensive. Due to the prices of the cars (assuming used, not leased), in this instance, due to the petrol being perceived as less attractive, it's a myth that the diesel is cheaper for a considerable number of commuters.
For new/leased cars this isn't so applicable.
The thing I find odd is that much of the "new" diesel technology comes from the transport industry, where stellar miles are expected and reliability is paramount.
We had an engine in at work a few years ago, common rail, multi squirt, etc., with a power recovery rurbine geared to the flywheel to get that last bit of energy from the exhaust. Not been tried in cars yet, that I kniw of.
To me that proves the technology can work well and reliably, at least under some conditions.
The main difference diesels for cars have is higer power output, higher rev range, and lighter weight : the manufacturers seem to have engineered out the reliability as a side effect.
What (specifically) did they do wrong?
We had an engine in at work a few years ago, common rail, multi squirt, etc., with a power recovery rurbine geared to the flywheel to get that last bit of energy from the exhaust. Not been tried in cars yet, that I kniw of.
To me that proves the technology can work well and reliably, at least under some conditions.
The main difference diesels for cars have is higer power output, higher rev range, and lighter weight : the manufacturers seem to have engineered out the reliability as a side effect.
What (specifically) did they do wrong?
The massive weakness of diesels with their emissions strangling ancillaries is that you aren't "allowed" to do short journeys. Now this is the first time in almost 25 years of driving that this "rule" has been introduced and we're meant to just swallow it - well sorry but I can drive our petrol cars a couple of miles without worrying constantly about clogging a DPF/EGR valve, etc.
In our diesels, I was always worried and even with the utmost care, our £50k VW diesel had been in for 3 new EGR valves at three years old and 23k miles - that's just not fit for purpose and the entire motoring public is being taken for a ride.
As stated before, diesels got good then they got killed in the obsessive quest to lower CO2 emissions (never mind the other cr4p that gets chucked out...).
I won't buy another having had several.
In our diesels, I was always worried and even with the utmost care, our £50k VW diesel had been in for 3 new EGR valves at three years old and 23k miles - that's just not fit for purpose and the entire motoring public is being taken for a ride.
As stated before, diesels got good then they got killed in the obsessive quest to lower CO2 emissions (never mind the other cr4p that gets chucked out...).
I won't buy another having had several.
Tractor lad said:
The massive weakness of diesels with their emissions strangling ancillaries is that you aren't "allowed" to do short journeys. Now this is the first time in almost 25 years of driving that this "rule" has been introduced and we're meant to just swallow it - well sorry but I can drive our petrol cars a couple of miles without worrying constantly about clogging a DPF/EGR valve, etc.
In our diesels, I was always worried and even with the utmost care, our £50k VW diesel had been in for 3 new EGR valves at three years old and 23k miles - that's just not fit for purpose and the entire motoring public is being taken for a ride.
As stated before, diesels got good then they got killed in the obsessive quest to lower CO2 emissions (never mind the other cr4p that gets chucked out...).
I won't buy another having had several.
Why would you want one to do 7600 miles a year anyway?In our diesels, I was always worried and even with the utmost care, our £50k VW diesel had been in for 3 new EGR valves at three years old and 23k miles - that's just not fit for purpose and the entire motoring public is being taken for a ride.
As stated before, diesels got good then they got killed in the obsessive quest to lower CO2 emissions (never mind the other cr4p that gets chucked out...).
I won't buy another having had several.
It's not about being "allowed" it's an engineering compromise that is accepted to make them less harmful to human health. The way people are going on you'd think this emissions equipment is installed just for sport rather than for the benefit of all of us. Does anyone here remember the stink and sickly feeling from walking along a congested major road in a city before we had any meaningful emissions regulation? Do you resent that you and your family don't have to breathe in lead vapour now, causing lowered intelligence and emotional instability?
The EGR system is nothing to do with CO2 emissions, it's to reduce the (really very harmful) NOX emissions. The DPF isn't for CO2 either, it's to get rid of the carcinogenic soot.
It's about the right tool for the right job - a modern diesel car that is equipped not to be so harmful to humans is as suitable as ever for high mileage usage. I don't get the hate for the diesel engine on here, when they are used in the correct context, but I will be glad to get the fumes and soot from them out of built up areas.
Edited by dme123 on Tuesday 30th June 11:12
dme123 said:
Why would you want one to do 7600 miles a year anyway?
It's not about being "allowed" it's about a side effect of making them less harmful to human health. It's about the right tool for the right job - a modern diesel car that is equipped not to be so harmful to humans is as suitable as ever for high mileage usage. I don't get the hate for the diesel engine on here, when they are used in the correct context, but I will be glad to get the fumes and soot from them out of built up areas.
It was a factory built VW camper - diesel only. When it worked, it was great but it so often didn't. Two 5 week tours of Europe, a week in Mull, etc, etc but it was damn thirsty as a daily.It's not about being "allowed" it's about a side effect of making them less harmful to human health. It's about the right tool for the right job - a modern diesel car that is equipped not to be so harmful to humans is as suitable as ever for high mileage usage. I don't get the hate for the diesel engine on here, when they are used in the correct context, but I will be glad to get the fumes and soot from them out of built up areas.
What is using one in the correct context? Because to me that's "using it." Unless you never top it up with oil, hold onto a clutch, thrash it to death, etc, you are using it correctly.
Robert Elise said:
i wonder whether diesels have hit rock bottom for reliability and are now getting better? From 2005 approx things started to hit the press as diesel reliability and big bills became common. Manufacturers desperately play catch up and *hopefully* the likes of Toyota have got this under control in last few years. Maybe we'll look back at 2005-2010 as a bad period for diesels. I don't know, i just hope as i may be getting a 2012 derv soon ;-(
I'd say not. Euro 6 is fantastically complicated and a lot to go wrong.In general I'd say for any car manufacturer you need to get the cars built ~2-3 years into production, they'll have all the "fixes" for the issues that have been found.
So for diesels I'd aim for either
1) The last of the Euro 4's (pre Sept 2009)
2) The last of the Euro 5a's (pre Sept 2011)
3) The last of the Euro 5b's (pre Sept 2014)
Any of the early cars are likely (although obviously not guaranteed) to run into issues purely due to being new technology and there are certain things that just can't be fixed like sooting up the turbo due to never being driven over 1500rpm and clogging the EGR.
dme123 said:
I don't get the hate for the diesel engine on here, when they are used in the correct context, but I will be glad to get the fumes and soot from them out of built up areas.
I don't hate diesels, as you stated its all about context. As a mile munching commuter its the sensible choice. Edited by dme123 on Tuesday 30th June 11:12
What I hate is when people choose diesel and try to tell me its better than petrol in all applications. Yes if your looking for something to pound motorways with its fine, but its not the ultimate answer to all car questions (see examples from defenders of diesels in the 'do you need anything other than a 320d' thread.
OldGermanHeaps said:
Dpf and egr can be solved with a £30 remap,way better mpg after too.
Aftermarket cheaper dmfs or solid conversion kits become available as engines become established and turbos are now dirt cheap. But hey ho, carry on the scaremongering i'll happily carry on buying tidy cars with easily fixed faults for buttons.
DMF's are there for a reason. NMH and so you don't break gearboxes. While theoretically designed for "the life of the car" the way a diesel engine makes it's power means they are a consumable on a diesel. Although they are now fitted to nearly all petrol cars as well you would be very unlucky to have one fail as they aren't as hard on them. Aftermarket cheaper dmfs or solid conversion kits become available as engines become established and turbos are now dirt cheap. But hey ho, carry on the scaremongering i'll happily carry on buying tidy cars with easily fixed faults for buttons.
DPF removal means an MOT fail unless you hide that you've removed the physical item (and re-mapped out the warning).
Fastdruid said:
I'd say not. Euro 6 is fantastically complicated and a lot to go wrong.
In general I'd say for any car manufacturer you need to get the cars built ~2-3 years into production, they'll have all the "fixes" for the issues that have been found.
So for diesels I'd aim for either
1) The last of the Euro 4's (pre Sept 2009)
2) The last of the Euro 5a's (pre Sept 2011)
3) The last of the Euro 5b's (pre Sept 2014)
Any of the early cars are likely (although obviously not guaranteed) to run into issues purely due to being new technology and there are certain things that just can't be fixed like sooting up the turbo due to never being driven over 1500rpm and clogging the EGR.
That's a useful post.In general I'd say for any car manufacturer you need to get the cars built ~2-3 years into production, they'll have all the "fixes" for the issues that have been found.
So for diesels I'd aim for either
1) The last of the Euro 4's (pre Sept 2009)
2) The last of the Euro 5a's (pre Sept 2011)
3) The last of the Euro 5b's (pre Sept 2014)
Any of the early cars are likely (although obviously not guaranteed) to run into issues purely due to being new technology and there are certain things that just can't be fixed like sooting up the turbo due to never being driven over 1500rpm and clogging the EGR.
I think i'll aim for a late 5b. my logic being that's 5 years of refinement to the 5 spec. I hear you: avoid Euro 6 for now.
Not having a cambelt only works if the chain setup is any good as plenty of BMW owners (and I'm sure others but BMW were the first to spring to mind) will attest.
I'd far rather a belt that lasts for 100k and is designed to be replaced relatively easily than a chain which doesn't last and requires lots of dismantling and expense to replace.
I'd far rather a belt that lasts for 100k and is designed to be replaced relatively easily than a chain which doesn't last and requires lots of dismantling and expense to replace.
Fastdruid said:
Not having a cambelt only works if the chain setup is any good as plenty of BMW owners (and I'm sure others but BMW were the first to spring to mind) will attest.
I'd far rather a belt that lasts for 100k and is designed to be replaced relatively easily than a chain which doesn't last and requires lots of dismantling and expense to replace.
Most cars I have owned, I have replaced the cambelt after purchase. It usually takes a couple of hours at most, and a belt / idler kit which costs sfa.I'd far rather a belt that lasts for 100k and is designed to be replaced relatively easily than a chain which doesn't last and requires lots of dismantling and expense to replace.
At a good independant it should still be a relatively cheap service item every 75,000 km or so.
I have a diesel simple set up if anything is simple.The 1.6 T.D.C.I. In the Citroen C4 G Picasso.I do like this engine for a diesel it is very quiet.If I listen to some of the VW Diesels they sound like tractors.
I would never remove a D.P.F Filter doing this should be illegal.I do majority of short runs but use the higher octane Diesel for this car.I like to see manufactures bring in more of the hybrid cars,electrice motor linked to a diesel.Far better for the environment in my opinion
I would never remove a D.P.F Filter doing this should be illegal.I do majority of short runs but use the higher octane Diesel for this car.I like to see manufactures bring in more of the hybrid cars,electrice motor linked to a diesel.Far better for the environment in my opinion
AW111 said:
Fastdruid said:
Not having a cambelt only works if the chain setup is any good as plenty of BMW owners (and I'm sure others but BMW were the first to spring to mind) will attest.
I'd far rather a belt that lasts for 100k and is designed to be replaced relatively easily than a chain which doesn't last and requires lots of dismantling and expense to replace.
Most cars I have owned, I have replaced the cambelt after purchase. It usually takes a couple of hours at most, and a belt / idler kit which costs sfa.I'd far rather a belt that lasts for 100k and is designed to be replaced relatively easily than a chain which doesn't last and requires lots of dismantling and expense to replace.
At a good independant it should still be a relatively cheap service item every 75,000 km or so.
macky17 said:
I would have agreed until recently. I think my problem was VAG group 4 pot diesels (crappy and unreliable) BMW diesels (even more unreliable) and Ford diesels (uninspiring - more reliable). Then I bought a 6-pot 3.0d S Jaguar XF diesel. Now I understand the diesel thing - it's epic.
With respect, your jag hasnt yet reached the age where it may have problems. Its a very complex car.Foppo said:
I have a diesel simple set up if anything is simple.The 1.6 T.D.C.I. In the Citroen C4 G Picasso.I do like this engine for a diesel it is very quiet.If I listen to some of the VW Diesels they sound like tractors.
I would never remove a D.P.F Filter doing this should be illegal.I do majority of short runs but use the higher octane Diesel for this car.I like to see manufactures bring in more of the hybrid cars,electrice motor linked to a diesel.Far better for the environment in my opinion
Dear God, the marketing got you didn't it?I would never remove a D.P.F Filter doing this should be illegal.I do majority of short runs but use the higher octane Diesel for this car.I like to see manufactures bring in more of the hybrid cars,electrice motor linked to a diesel.Far better for the environment in my opinion
Have a little read about the impact of industry. Specifically China, Russia, Brazil, India and then tell me how important the average motorists choice of propulsion is.
Foppo said:
I have a diesel simple set up if anything is simple.The 1.6 T.D.C.I. In the Citroen C4 G Picasso.I do like this engine for a diesel it is very quiet.If I listen to some of the VW Diesels they sound like tractors.
I would never remove a D.P.F Filter doing this should be illegal.I do majority of short runs but use the higher octane Diesel for this car.I like to see manufactures bring in more of the hybrid cars,electrice motor linked to a diesel.Far better for the environment in my opinion
Dear God, the marketing got you didn't it?I would never remove a D.P.F Filter doing this should be illegal.I do majority of short runs but use the higher octane Diesel for this car.I like to see manufactures bring in more of the hybrid cars,electrice motor linked to a diesel.Far better for the environment in my opinion
Have a little read about the impact of industry. Specifically China, Russia, Brazil, India and then tell me how important the average motorists choice of propulsion is.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff