Is the diesel backlash about to start?
Discussion
Diderot, are you really saying the following :-
(a) if you were building your own home you would just bung in a standard oil burner, standard radiators, and wouldnt pay any attention to any opportunities you might have to save money on heating costs?
(b) you're happy with the level of dependence we as a country have on fossil fuels and you're happy at the rate they're being used?
(c) you're confident that there wont be increased price / fuel taxes in the future to such an extent that it could inhibit the amount of driving you do and / or to what degree you heat your home OR force you to spend an excessive amount to do so, at the expense of other things you would rather spend money on?
(a) if you were building your own home you would just bung in a standard oil burner, standard radiators, and wouldnt pay any attention to any opportunities you might have to save money on heating costs?
(b) you're happy with the level of dependence we as a country have on fossil fuels and you're happy at the rate they're being used?
(c) you're confident that there wont be increased price / fuel taxes in the future to such an extent that it could inhibit the amount of driving you do and / or to what degree you heat your home OR force you to spend an excessive amount to do so, at the expense of other things you would rather spend money on?
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
Even if I was paying personally though I would still have a petrol as I would rather pay more to not drive a diesel. I have yet to drive a single diesel that is in any way better to drive than a petrol car and if you don't need it to do 15-20k+ why would you want to suffer a diesel?
Hmm. Again, its all very well saying that, but if you were doing 20K miles pa, the novelty of filling up every few days and dropping £600 a month of fuel soon wears off.The "equivalent" (yet slower) Diesel is claimed 57mpg 'extra urban' against 41.5mpg for mine, assuming that both hit them (I'd actually expect about 37mpg from mine but nevermind) the difference over a year including VED is £800.
I would gratefully pay that to not drive a diesel.
Anyway, more to the point while I would be prepared to pay 1k extra a year to not drive a diesel there is no need as it is actually *cheaper* to run the top end petrol model than the diesel!
Everything combined over a 2 year period, including depreciation (buying at "dealer valuation", selling at "part exchange" valuation), VED, all fuel costs (realistic for the current, claimed for the diesel) but excluding servicing costs (which are actually more for the diesel) I am £34 a month better off to have a faster, quicker, nicer to drive, lower mileage petrol car.
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
Even if I was paying personally though I would still have a petrol as I would rather pay more to not drive a diesel. I have yet to drive a single diesel that is in any way better to drive than a petrol car and if you don't need it to do 15-20k+ why would you want to suffer a diesel?
Hmm. Again, its all very well saying that, but if you were doing 20K miles pa, the novelty of filling up every few days and dropping £600 a month of fuel soon wears off.The "equivalent" (yet slower) Diesel is claimed 57mpg 'extra urban' against 41.5mpg for mine, assuming that both hit them (I'd actually expect about 37mpg from mine but nevermind) the difference over a year including VED is £800.
I would gratefully pay that to not drive a diesel.
Anyway, more to the point while I would be prepared to pay 1k extra a year to not drive a diesel there is no need as it is actually *cheaper* to run the top end petrol model than the diesel!
Everything combined over a 2 year period, including depreciation (buying at "dealer valuation", selling at "part exchange" valuation), VED, all fuel costs (realistic for the current, claimed for the diesel) but excluding servicing costs (which are actually more for the diesel) I am £34 a month better off to have a faster, quicker, nicer to drive, lower mileage petrol car.
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
Even if I was paying personally though I would still have a petrol as I would rather pay more to not drive a diesel. I have yet to drive a single diesel that is in any way better to drive than a petrol car and if you don't need it to do 15-20k+ why would you want to suffer a diesel?
Hmm. Again, its all very well saying that, but if you were doing 20K miles pa, the novelty of filling up every few days and dropping £600 a month of fuel soon wears off.The "equivalent" (yet slower) Diesel is claimed 57mpg 'extra urban' against 41.5mpg for mine, assuming that both hit them (I'd actually expect about 37mpg from mine but nevermind) the difference over a year including VED is £800.
I would gratefully pay that to not drive a diesel.
Anyway, more to the point while I would be prepared to pay 1k extra a year to not drive a diesel there is no need as it is actually *cheaper* to run the top end petrol model than the diesel!
Everything combined over a 2 year period, including depreciation (buying at "dealer valuation", selling at "part exchange" valuation), VED, all fuel costs (realistic for the current, claimed for the diesel) but excluding servicing costs (which are actually more for the diesel) I am £34 a month better off to have a faster, quicker, nicer to drive, lower mileage petrol car.
I'm £38 a month better off and if I was to do 20k/year (ie an extra 10k of business miles) I'd be £52 a month better off...
In fact the more miles per year the better off I'd be, at 35k/year I'd be £73 a month better off! Again assuming that the diesel gets claimed extra urban and mine gets the far more realistic 4.5mpg under the claimed mpg!
The break even point between the two is 13750 pa, ie I'd have to nearly triple my personal mileage and do zero business miles.
Even being really generous and assuming that the diesel will get the claimed combined mpg of 45mpg while mine gets 26 (which is the measured avg) and I do no business miles, the break even is 6500pa. That's nearly 20mpg better yet despite that petrol is still cheaper for me.
Nicer to drive, smoother, faster, quicker and cheaper to run. What is not to like?
daemon said:
Diderot, are you really saying the following :-
(a) if you were building your own home you would just bung in a standard oil burner, standard radiators, and wouldnt pay any attention to any opportunities you might have to save money on heating costs?
(b) you're happy with the level of dependence we as a country have on fossil fuels and you're happy at the rate they're being used?
(c) you're confident that there wont be increased price / fuel taxes in the future to such an extent that it could inhibit the amount of driving you do and / or to what degree you heat your home OR force you to spend an excessive amount to do so, at the expense of other things you would rather spend money on?
I take your point about the panels, I thought you had PV etc and I misunderstood. (a) if you were building your own home you would just bung in a standard oil burner, standard radiators, and wouldnt pay any attention to any opportunities you might have to save money on heating costs?
(b) you're happy with the level of dependence we as a country have on fossil fuels and you're happy at the rate they're being used?
(c) you're confident that there wont be increased price / fuel taxes in the future to such an extent that it could inhibit the amount of driving you do and / or to what degree you heat your home OR force you to spend an excessive amount to do so, at the expense of other things you would rather spend money on?
(a) I doubt very much I'd spend £12k+ on a biomass installation. But your choice of course. First priorities for me would be location, plot size, then house design, then interior design etc. For good or ill, how to heat it beyond conventional systems would come further down the list. I do like open fires and wood burners though.
(b) nope, I'm not, that's why I've argued for shale extraction all along and indeed for nuclear. No point in exploring wind, solar etc, when they are inefficient and unreliable and cannot work on a large scale. Energy security is a good point and we need to sort it, and I would suggest that beyond the tax take, one of the Government's motivating factors behind the Global Warming scam is trying to wean the populace off gas and oil from problematic regimes like Russia, Middle East, Indonesia etc. IMO, it makes the case for shale and nuclear even stronger. BTW, if you're suggesting Peak Oil, it's not happening anytime soon ...
(c) There will be increased taxes, that's the nature of the beast that is the Government. The old adage, death and taxes ... Fact is that the longer the Global Warming myth survives, the more we will be forced to pay up - lest we forget that Ed Minigland signed us up to spunking £18bn a year for 40 years to combat something that's not been happening for the past 18 years; and for as long as cars are taxed on the basis of lemonade bubble emissions, we will continue to be crucified. Green levies are evil, pervasive and corrupt. Shoring up unsustainable industries is utter madness.
Back more on topic - currently we have 2 cars, one 3.2 straight 6 (Z4MC), and one 3 litre turbo (M135i). I have had a few diesels in the recent past and would happily have them again - depends on which car though and what its purpose was. For example, not sure I'd buy a big SUV petrol with my own money, or a 3 series sized estate petrol either. But Sports cars and GTs are a different matter of course, though I did recently drive a 635d and thought it was great for a GT.
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
daemon said:
Fastdruid said:
Even if I was paying personally though I would still have a petrol as I would rather pay more to not drive a diesel. I have yet to drive a single diesel that is in any way better to drive than a petrol car and if you don't need it to do 15-20k+ why would you want to suffer a diesel?
Hmm. Again, its all very well saying that, but if you were doing 20K miles pa, the novelty of filling up every few days and dropping £600 a month of fuel soon wears off.The "equivalent" (yet slower) Diesel is claimed 57mpg 'extra urban' against 41.5mpg for mine, assuming that both hit them (I'd actually expect about 37mpg from mine but nevermind) the difference over a year including VED is £800.
I would gratefully pay that to not drive a diesel.
Anyway, more to the point while I would be prepared to pay 1k extra a year to not drive a diesel there is no need as it is actually *cheaper* to run the top end petrol model than the diesel!
Everything combined over a 2 year period, including depreciation (buying at "dealer valuation", selling at "part exchange" valuation), VED, all fuel costs (realistic for the current, claimed for the diesel) but excluding servicing costs (which are actually more for the diesel) I am £34 a month better off to have a faster, quicker, nicer to drive, lower mileage petrol car.
I'm £38 a month better off and if I was to do 20k/year (ie an extra 10k of business miles) I'd be £52 a month better off...
In fact the more miles per year the better off I'd be, at 35k/year I'd be £73 a month better off! Again assuming that the diesel gets claimed extra urban and mine gets the far more realistic 4.5mpg under the claimed mpg!
The break even point between the two is 13750 pa, ie I'd have to nearly triple my personal mileage and do zero business miles.
Even being really generous and assuming that the diesel will get the claimed combined mpg of 45mpg while mine gets 26 (which is the measured avg) and I do no business miles, the break even is 6500pa. That's nearly 20mpg better yet despite that petrol is still cheaper for me.
Nicer to drive, smoother, faster, quicker and cheaper to run. What is not to like?
I have no issue with petrol cars, and to be honest too many people chose diesels by default when really they shouldnt and dont need one.
I would have no qualms buying something like you have if i was doing the same miles you are - as you can see by my profile.
Diderot said:
I take your point about the panels, I thought you had PV etc and I misunderstood.
Whilst you have very strong opinions on PV, i would certainly have reservations about them, so in that sense i can see where your coming from. I also can take your point RE: those people who jump on every possible "green" option just because they think its the "in" thing to do. We didnt - we did things that there was a real saving from in at very least the medium / long term OR whereby we could spend a few extra ££s and get something that gave better efficiency / less heat loss / or whatever.
You could definitely blow a small fortune on stuff that you might never get a return on - like windmills
Diderot said:
(a) I doubt very much I'd spend £12k+ on a biomass installation. But your choice of course. First priorities for me would be location, plot size, then house design, then interior design etc. For good or ill, how to heat it beyond conventional systems would come further down the list. I do like open fires and wood burners though.
The burner didnt cost us anywhere near that, and dont forget with a new build, you're not paying VAT, and also you'd have to consider the cost of an oil install anyway.Our priorities were similar to yours location (handy to my wifes work so she won on that) but still within 10 miles on two cities and a couple of miles from two towns, good shaped good sized plot, design, interior, etc. It was a full bespoke build so its designed totally for the way we live, which was nice to be able to do.
As i said i have concerns over long term pricing of fossil fuels, so the biomass burner seemed a good alternative. Plus i like the fact that its done locally, local jobs, etc.
We're not open fire people, but yes there would be alternatives with stoves, etc, that could be used if you werent set on a fully automated solution.
Diderot said:
(b) nope, I'm not, that's why I've argued for shale extraction all along and indeed for nuclear. No point in exploring wind, solar etc, when they are inefficient and unreliable and cannot work on a large scale. Energy security is a good point and we need to sort it, and I would suggest that beyond the tax take, one of the Government's motivating factors behind the Global Warming scam is trying to wean the populace off gas and oil from problematic regimes like Russia, Middle East, Indonesia etc. IMO, it makes the case for shale and nuclear even stronger. BTW, if you're suggesting Peak Oil, it's not happening anytime soon ...
I wouldnt argue with you on any of that.Diderot said:
(c) There will be increased taxes, that's the nature of the beast that is the Government. The old adage, death and taxes ... Fact is that the longer the Global Warming myth survives, the more we will be forced to pay up - lest we forget that Ed Minigland signed us up to spunking £18bn a year for 40 years to combat something that's not been happening for the past 18 years; and for as long as cars are taxed on the basis of lemonade bubble emissions, we will continue to be crucified. Green levies are evil, pervasive and corrupt. Shoring up unsustainable industries is utter madness.
Well not being reliant so much on fossil fuels is my direct action way of avoiding taxes that will continue to be lumped on them.Diderot said:
Back more on topic - currently we have 2 cars, one 3.2 straight 6 (Z4MC), and one 3 litre turbo (M135i). I have had a few diesels in the recent past and would happily have them again - depends on which car though and what its purpose was. For example, not sure I'd buy a big SUV petrol with my own money, or a 3 series sized estate petrol either. But Sports cars and GTs are a different matter of course, though I did recently drive a 635d and thought it was great for a GT.
Wifie had a 3.0Si z4 coupe, loved it. Has a new model 2.0i Turbo now - pics in profile. Son has a 120d M Sport - getting 46mpg which isnt all that but he drives it like he stole it.Had a e70 X5 DIESEL that i bought new, thinking "how hard can it be on fuel" - WRONG - was spending £500 a month on diesel at one point. Very depressing. Loved it though.
Had a couple of 535d's. Loved the power, loved the relative economy, but if i was doing it again i'd be looking a 550i. Wifies boss had a 650i. Amazing engine.
But until i get a lottery win or my work opens an office down the road from me, then its Golf diesel...
If you build a small 3 cylinder turbo charged petrol engine, and control the heat transfer and fueling, so that it quickly comes up to temperature, and the fuel is regulated VERY accurately, you can have a VERY light small engine, which produces lots of mid range torque, but revs like a banshee. Because it is small and light, the car can have smaller tyres, smaller brakes, and less firm suspension, and it will achieve decent fuel consumption.
This was the prediction I made in the late 90's when the Variable Nozzle Turbo was changing the Diesel into a desirable car, and 18 years on, I think Ford have succeeded with the ecoboost 1.0 Maybe. I know 3 people with a Focus 1.0 and they are absolutely amazed at how good it is.
This was the prediction I made in the late 90's when the Variable Nozzle Turbo was changing the Diesel into a desirable car, and 18 years on, I think Ford have succeeded with the ecoboost 1.0 Maybe. I know 3 people with a Focus 1.0 and they are absolutely amazed at how good it is.
Fastdruid said:
Shame really that the ecoboost is a fat lump of an engine. 
it's nearly 20kg heavier than a the comparable power Zetec 1.6 engine. It's only a smidge lighter than a 2.0!!!
Still it is 40Kg lighter than the 1.6 TDCI115 so that's ok then.
And like most small turbo engines (maybe all) it doesn't like revs. It is at it's best driven like a granny, in which circumstance it feels reasonably powerful. The surprise is putting your foot down and finding out that it has nothing more to give. it's nearly 20kg heavier than a the comparable power Zetec 1.6 engine. It's only a smidge lighter than a 2.0!!!Still it is 40Kg lighter than the 1.6 TDCI115 so that's ok then.
The Focus and Fiesta are still damn good cars. I imagine the 2l Ecoboost engine is similar bit haven't sampled it.
daemon said:
Wifie had a 3.0Si z4 coupe, loved it. Has a new model 2.0i Turbo now - pics in profile. Son has a 120d M Sport - getting 46mpg which isnt all that but he drives it like he stole it.
Had a e70 X5 DIESEL that i bought new, thinking "how hard can it be on fuel" - WRONG - was spending £500 a month on diesel at one point. Very depressing. Loved it though.
Had a couple of 535d's. Loved the power, loved the relative economy, but if i was doing it again i'd be looking a 550i. Wifies boss had a 650i. Amazing engine.
But until i get a lottery win or my work opens an office down the road from me, then its Golf diesel...
Damn you daemon and your 650 - I'm now going to have to drive one and of course I'll prefer it to the 635d and I'll buy one. You know you can really go off some people Had a e70 X5 DIESEL that i bought new, thinking "how hard can it be on fuel" - WRONG - was spending £500 a month on diesel at one point. Very depressing. Loved it though.
Had a couple of 535d's. Loved the power, loved the relative economy, but if i was doing it again i'd be looking a 550i. Wifies boss had a 650i. Amazing engine.
But until i get a lottery win or my work opens an office down the road from me, then its Golf diesel...
. I'd buy a golf diesel or your son's 120d every day of the week if I was doing the mileage. Very interested to know what you think of the 2.0 turbo vs the 3.0 si
Cheers!
Edited by Diderot on Friday 15th August 01:21
I've got laugh at some comments on here.
Pistonheads, where mpg, miles to a tank and savings on fuel matters.
As a generalisation, up until the last few years, yes, buy a diesel if you are doing 20K miles a year or more but now, modern petrol turbos get just about as good mpg as their diesel counterparts and in most cases the diesel's don't have a much of s torque advantage either but still have an awful powerband and sound awful (IMO). Petrol is more refined, sounds better and can rev higher, whether driving 10K miles a year or 50K miles per year, I'd rather pay a bit more and drive a new petrol turbo.
If you are buying new, buy the PETROL equivilant, buying a new diesel car is pretty pointless if you are a REAL pistonhead.
These are my opinions though, keen for a debate, I've had my time with a diesel car, loved it but it grew boring and I had to switch back to the green pump.
Pistonheads, where mpg, miles to a tank and savings on fuel matters.
As a generalisation, up until the last few years, yes, buy a diesel if you are doing 20K miles a year or more but now, modern petrol turbos get just about as good mpg as their diesel counterparts and in most cases the diesel's don't have a much of s torque advantage either but still have an awful powerband and sound awful (IMO). Petrol is more refined, sounds better and can rev higher, whether driving 10K miles a year or 50K miles per year, I'd rather pay a bit more and drive a new petrol turbo.
If you are buying new, buy the PETROL equivilant, buying a new diesel car is pretty pointless if you are a REAL pistonhead.
These are my opinions though, keen for a debate, I've had my time with a diesel car, loved it but it grew boring and I had to switch back to the green pump.
Edited by neil1jnr on Friday 15th August 07:35
Fastdruid said:
Shame really that the ecoboost is a fat lump of an engine. it's nearly 20kg heavier than a the comparable power Zetec 1.6 engine. It's only a smidge lighter than a 2.0!!!
Still it is 40Kg lighter than the 1.6 TDCI115 so that's ok then.
Joys of turbocharging and yet you hear 'Prius dragging all that weigth doing nothing' a turbo diesel is doing similar with the iron block (in most cases) turbo, intercooler, alternator, cast manifold and dual mass flywheel. it's nearly 20kg heavier than a the comparable power Zetec 1.6 engine. It's only a smidge lighter than a 2.0!!!Still it is 40Kg lighter than the 1.6 TDCI115 so that's ok then.
neil1jnr said:
I've got laugh at some comments on here.
Pistonheads, where mpg, miles to a tank and savings on fuel matters.
Yes of course, because if you're driving a lot then these things matter. Stopping for fuel lengthens your journey times and it is one of life's most boring tasks. Of course you keep it to a minimum.Pistonheads, where mpg, miles to a tank and savings on fuel matters.
Fuels saved in the boring cars mean you have fuel to play with in the interesting ones.
Diesels only have rev band issues if you select completely the wrong gearbox, which a petrolhead shouldn't but seems frequently does.
I'd be interested to know what rev band issues your Leon tdi dsg had, cos I consider ours doesn't have any. You put your foot down and it accelerates uninterrupted to its maximum speed. What does a rev band have to do with it?
Fastdruid said:
If I actually got 41.5mpg it would be £235/month. I suspect though that seeing as my best ever driving like a saint at 60mph has only seen 39.9mpg that's not going to happen. Although there is a chance that's the 41.5 is only running on Super which as I've recently found should give me 14hp more I'm going to start fueling it with...
This is from your 5 pot 2.5 turbo, Dave? The same engine as in Alex's Volvo? A similar sized car (I will admit the Volvo may be heavier - but by how much). That gives an average of 27.5mpg. Never got it over 30 on a single trip - and god knows we've tried.How do you manage this uber-frugality?
Interestingly I had a sit down to work out the relative running costs for a number of cars, eg 320i vs 320d, 530i vs 530d. Same spec, same gearbox.
I used the parkers valuation on the cars at 3yo (2011/11 plate) and took the new cost minus the part exchange price to get the depreciation.
I included VED but ignored servicing and consumables (which for comparable cars will be pretty much the same).
Assuming that my business miles will be at "extra urban mpg" and my personal miles will be "avg mpg", not one diesel was cheaper to run! Even when I bumped the annual mileage up to 25k the petrol was still cheaper.
Then I tried leasing. Exactly the same result.
Buying, leasing, it made no difference. The petrol car was cheaper almost[1] every time!
Now admittedly this is somewhat of an a result of my business mileage payments (paid at HMRC Company car rates). So I excluded them. Same result. Almost every single car[1] I looked at the extra cost for the diesel engine made up for the difference in mpg.
As an example a leased 320i SE vs a 320d SE, if I didn't do a single business mile I'd need to be doing 18.4k to break even.
[1] The only exception I found was actually the Mondeo, leased 2.0T vs 2.2TDCI, the break even was 3500 and as the 2.0T is <2l and the 2.2TDCI > 2l the mileage rate is far higher so for my mileage the Diesel would save £154/year.
I used the parkers valuation on the cars at 3yo (2011/11 plate) and took the new cost minus the part exchange price to get the depreciation.
I included VED but ignored servicing and consumables (which for comparable cars will be pretty much the same).
Assuming that my business miles will be at "extra urban mpg" and my personal miles will be "avg mpg", not one diesel was cheaper to run! Even when I bumped the annual mileage up to 25k the petrol was still cheaper.
Then I tried leasing. Exactly the same result.
Buying, leasing, it made no difference. The petrol car was cheaper almost[1] every time!
Now admittedly this is somewhat of an a result of my business mileage payments (paid at HMRC Company car rates). So I excluded them. Same result. Almost every single car[1] I looked at the extra cost for the diesel engine made up for the difference in mpg.
As an example a leased 320i SE vs a 320d SE, if I didn't do a single business mile I'd need to be doing 18.4k to break even.
[1] The only exception I found was actually the Mondeo, leased 2.0T vs 2.2TDCI, the break even was 3500 and as the 2.0T is <2l and the 2.2TDCI > 2l the mileage rate is far higher so for my mileage the Diesel would save £154/year.
Dog Star said:
Fastdruid said:
If I actually got 41.5mpg it would be £235/month. I suspect though that seeing as my best ever driving like a saint at 60mph has only seen 39.9mpg that's not going to happen. Although there is a chance that's the 41.5 is only running on Super which as I've recently found should give me 14hp more I'm going to start fueling it with...
This is from your 5 pot 2.5 turbo, Dave? The same engine as in Alex's Volvo? A similar sized car (I will admit the Volvo may be heavier - but by how much). That gives an average of 27.5mpg. Never got it over 30 on a single trip - and god knows we've tried.How do you manage this uber-frugality?
Absolutely hooning it as in >85 with trips to 120+ and I'll get sub-30 on a run. Normally I stick it at 70 indicated and get 37mpg, stick it at 70 gps and I get 35mpg. I have done a trip at 60 and was >40mpg for most of the journey but the last mile dropped it to 39.9mpg!
Round town it is poor, I've had 16mpg avg out of it before. I normally average 24-28mpg but that is mostly town with a relatively small amount of motorway.
I'm going by the fuel computer but I've checked it before and if anything it's an mpg pessimistic.
Edited by Fastdruid on Friday 15th August 10:28
heebeegeetee said:
neil1jnr said:
I've got laugh at some comments on here.
Pistonheads, where mpg, miles to a tank and savings on fuel matters.
Yes of course, because if you're driving a lot then these things matter. Stopping for fuel lengthens your journey times and it is one of life's most boring tasks. Of course you keep it to a minimum.Pistonheads, where mpg, miles to a tank and savings on fuel matters.
Fuels saved in the boring cars mean you have fuel to play with in the interesting ones.
Diesels only have rev band issues if you select completely the wrong gearbox, which a petrolhead shouldn't but seems frequently does.
I'd be interested to know what rev band issues your Leon tdi dsg had, cos I consider ours doesn't have any. You put your foot down and it accelerates uninterrupted to its maximum speed. What does a rev band have to do with it?
The problem with the Leon was that it died after 4k rpm (it was mapped too), when you really wanted to go for it the car had nothing extra too offer as you have used up the huge torque and the power at once. The DSG was great and changing just before 4000rpm ensured you were constantly in the power band, I agree with your comment about the acceleration. I find diesels get boring quickly and anybody seriously into driving would and looking for a brand new car would not choose the diesel.
However, my issue is more with the general power delivery of diesel and their lack of revs. After the torque it's a downhill and the feeling of acceleration only drops. I am comparing with my Fiesta ST MP215, the Fiesta has the same huge torque as the Leon (torque to weight ratios are the same 236lbs ft vs 296lbs ft) but keep your foot down past 4000rpm and the power comes into play all the way past 6000rpm. It's just so much better.
Stopping to fill up isn't a big issue if you FILL the tank everytime. It only lengthens a journey if you plan to do say a 400 mile journey, the Fiesta would need filled for example 325 miles and the Leon 450 miles, any longer than 450 miles or shorter than 325 miles in one journey then you point is invalid.Stopping for a break (ie to fill up) on long journeys is a good thing so ytou can stretch the legs.
Why save money driving a boring car, which IMO sounds awful, for fuel in a more exciting car. Why not drive an exciting car all the time and subsidise the slightly higher cost of fuel by having a few less pints at the pub or buying a cheaper pair of jeans? After having a great diesel car I got bored and realised that now, which technology, there is no need for diesel when petrol have the benefits of diesels and diesels don't have the benefits of petrols.
Modern Petrol turbos are soo close in terms of mpg and miles per tank, but modern diesels are no where near got the flexability, fun factor, noise of petrols.
Edited by neil1jnr on Friday 15th August 10:50
neil1jnr said:
but keep your foot down past 4000rpm and the power comes into play all the way past 6000rpm. It's just so much better.
But what we are talking about here is "subjective" performance. i could say, and this reflects the way 99.9% of people drive, "Damm car, you have to rev the nuts off it to get anywhere" for example!Lets face it, a Leon (<< insert your fav brand of mass produced saloon/hatchback here) is no 911 GT3, no matter which pump it fuels from. For the vast majority of people, me included, for a road car i want quiet, effortless and easily accessible everyday performance, which the high boost dervs deliver, and is one of the reasons they are so popular. And that's precisely the reason people on "PH" like to get up and shout "Dervs are not very PH" or whatever. No, no they are not, and that is why people drive them ;-)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff