Why are people buying expensive diesels?

[anonymous-user]

All that jazz said:

Guy in the Ford forum has just announced he's bought a brand new Focus ST diesel... to do "no more than 5000 miles a year" in.

Ha ha great choice!

[ZX10R NIN]

waremark said:

I thought Euro 6 compliant.

I understood it would be Euro 4 then would go to Euro 6 I maybe wrong though, in a similar fashion that they have done for commercial vehicles.

[anonymous-user]

When I bought my Volvo C70 I knew I'd be doing 25 - 30k a year so I diligently made a spreadsheet of running costs for the D5 and T5. Diesel would save over £100 a month so I thought "maybe you won't hate having a diesel so much this time" and bought the D5.

It's very good for a diesel, and the economy beats the book figures. I fking hate it and I'll be rid of it soon, I should have learned my lesson when I bought a diesel Jaguar S-Type and hated that too :-(

It must make even less sense when the depreciation on the car is £500+ a month to put up with such a compromised powerplant.

Edited by dme123 on Saturday 10th October 15:57

[AreOut]

depreciation is the main problem with expensive cars, even if you do 50K miles a year that will save you maybe couple of thousands compared to petrol but you will often lose 20K in that same year on depreciation so why bother...

[GetCarter]

AreOut said:

depreciation is the main problem with expensive cars, even if you do 50K miles a year that will save you maybe couple of thousands compared to petrol but you will often lose 20K in that same year on depreciation so why bother...

Because some of us aren't interested in saving money, but increasing range.

[Monkeylegend]

AreOut said:

depreciation is the main problem with expensive cars, even if you do 50K miles a year that will save you maybe couple of thousands compared to petrol but you will often lose 20K in that same year on depreciation so why bother...

You say that as if petrol cars don't depreciate. Have I missed something?

[ZX10R NIN]

AreOut said:

depreciation is the main problem with expensive cars, even if you do 50K miles a year that will save you maybe couple of thousands compared to petrol but you will often lose 20K in that same year on depreciation so why bother...

If you're buying a 50k Panamera you've got past the hard depreciation as well as saving 2k on fuel you'll get 5-6k more with the diesel on re sale & then you have the added bonus of the more fuel efficient car with no deficit in performance.

[ORD]

If you don't mind tractor noises and don't care about local air pollution, there's no denying that there are cars for which the diesel is a very sensible choice. Panamera is probably one of them, except that the fastest one is the only real Porsche and it's a petrol

[ZX10R NIN]

You can only complain about local air pollution if you're prepared to tackle your local problems that are cause & effect which are the things that influence peoples lifestyle choices, speed humps 20mph limits bad road design & loss of carriageway space none of which you've said you can't be bothered to do because it will make no difference complaining to your council, but you want to complain about peoples choices.
In the case of the Panamera neither the 3.6 or the tdi sound anything special inside you'd struggle to tell the difference.

[Elysium]

dme123 said:

When I bought my Volvo C70 I knew I'd be doing 25 - 30k a year so I diligently made a spreadsheet of running costs for the D5 and T5. Diesel would save over £100 a month so I thought "maybe you won't hate having a diesel so much this time" and bought the D5.

It's very good for a diesel, and the economy beats the book figures. I fking hate it and I'll be rid of it soon, I should have learned my lesson when I bought a diesel Jaguar S-Type and hated that too :-(

It must make even less sense when the depreciation on the car is £500+ a month to put up with such a compromised powerplant.

I think the problem here is that you bought the wrong car(s)

The Jag 'diesel S' is all right, but I would rather have an XFR. The only decent diesel engines so far are in BMW and Audi's and they have at least 2 turbos.

Edited by Elysium on Saturday 10th October 19:56

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

I think the problem here is that you bought the wrong car(s)

The Jag 'diesel S' is all right, but I would rather have an XFR. The only decent diesel engines so far are in BMW and Audi's and they have at least 2 turbos.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th October 19:56

Crap. Mercedes have some of the best and the Volvo 5 pots despite not being crazy fast are tough and full of character (for a diesel)

[Elysium]

yonex said:

Crap. Mercedes have some of the best and the Volvo 5 pots despite not being crazy fast are tough and full of character (for a diesel)

The BMW and Audi twin turbo engines are the only ones that can really win a fair fight against the petrol alternative.

'Decent' was probably the wrong way to describe this, but that's what I meant.

I have driven a fair few 2 and 3 litre single turbo diesels over the years and the V70 D5. They were universally functional rather than exiting and I would not have chosen them over a petrol car.

Edited by Elysium on Sunday 11th October 18:28

[gizlaroc]

GetCarter said:

Because some of us aren't interested in saving money, but increasing range.

But even that is not true.

I have a 2.0T A4 avant, it does 500 miles from a £62 fill up.

I have a 20d X3, it does 550 mies from a £62 fill up.

Before that I had the 3.2fsi A6 avant, which did 475 miles from a £75 fill up.
That replaced a 535d Touring that did 450 miles from a £75 fill up.


However, I did have an old 1.9tdi A4 that used to see some 650 miles from a £60 fill up.
But then if I bought a new 1.4t cylinder on demand, what would that return? I bet pretty damned close.

I also had an E320 with an 80 l tank, that would often see 600 miles between fill ups, although it did cost £85-90 to fill. But still, if we are talking range that is pretty good for a petrol. The E350cdi that replaced it only ever saw 50 miles more per tank, hardly worth loosing sleep over.

[gizlaroc]

yonex said:

Crap. Mercedes have some of the best and the Volvo 5 pots despite not being crazy fast are tough and full of character (for a diesel)

What decent Merc diesels are there?

I have had the 320cdi (Brabus tuned) and the later 350cdi and neither of them come close to the 535d I had, and yet that was worse than the 335i I had as well, in every respect.

[gizlaroc]

And to answer my own question on what the 1.4t would offer consumption wise, this is an Seat Leon from the Audi/VW/Seat section...

[apotts]

gizlaroc said:

That replaced a 535d Touring that did 450 miles from a £75 fill up.

Maybe because my 535d is a saloon....:

[ZX10R NIN]

gizlaroc said:

But even that is not true.

I have a 2.0T A4 avant, it does 500 miles from a £62 fill up.

I have a 20d X3, it does 550 mies from a £62 fill up.

Before that I had the 3.2fsi A6 avant, which did 475 miles from a £75 fill up.
That replaced a 535d Touring that did 450 miles from a £75 fill up.


However, I did have an old 1.9tdi A4 that used to see some 650 miles from a £60 fill up.
But then if I bought a new 1.4t cylinder on demand, what would that return? I bet pretty damned close.

I also had an E320 with an 80 l tank, that would often see 600 miles between fill ups, although it did cost £85-90 to fill. But still, if we are talking range that is pretty good for a petrol. The E350cdi that replaced it only ever saw 50 miles more per tank, hardly worth loosing sleep over.

I will get an easy 700+ miles out of my CLK diesel on a run as an average I'll see 570 miles out of a tank, now comparing a 1.4 to a 3.0 then of course the 1.4 will be better comparing it to a 1.4 diesel would be more relevant, as an average my CLK320cdi is averaging 46.2mpg the D3 is averaging 48.6mpg over the last 5 months, if you put that 1.4T lump in an A6 for example do you think you'd get better fuel than the same A6 with a 3.0tdi lump in it?

For example the 1.0 petrol Mondeo has a claimed mpg of 55.4 mpg 0-60mph in 11.6 secs the 2.0tdci's claimed figures are 58.9mpg 0-60mph in 9.9 secs

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Saturday 10th October 22:38

[AreOut]

GetCarter said:

Because some of us aren't interested in saving money, but increasing range.

is 50-100 miles increased range really worth it then? If you do as much as 3000 miles a month it means 5 goings to gas station instead of 6, big fckn deal.

Monkeylegend said:

You say that as if petrol cars don't depreciate. Have I missed something?

erm they do as much, but the point is if you can lose 20K a year on depreciation will 1-2K for fuel really make a difference?

ZX10R NIN said:

If you're buying a 50k Panamera you've got past the hard depreciation as well as saving 2k on fuel you'll get 5-6k more with the diesel on re sale & then you have the added bonus of the more fuel efficient car with no deficit in performance.

then again if you install LPG in Panamera you get even better economy and don't lose on sound/experience (well except a little less trunk space)

[ZX10R NIN]

AreOut said:

then again if you install LPG in Panamera you get even better economy and don't lose on sound/experience (well except a little less trunk space)

So you need add 2.5K to the purchase price just to get near the diesel, what experience do you mean? Both the diesel & petrol handle the same so your only left with the sound that you can just about hear.

On the link below go to 1.20 & then onto 3.20 & tell me the petrol sounds any better than the diesel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ0cA9hjOig

You can't even hear the engine on start up

Edited by ZX10R NIN on Sunday 11th October 08:49

[Monkeylegend]

AreOut said:

Monkeylegend said:

You say that as if petrol cars don't depreciate. Have I missed something?

erm they do as much, but the point is if you can lose 20K a year on depreciation will 1-2K for fuel really make a difference?

£2k is not to be sniffed at, so yes it does make a difference.