Would you still go Diesel...
Discussion
aeropilot said:
Which is why petrol hybrids for big SUV's are an utterly pointless thing.
Diesel hybrid would make much more sense, as around town and short journeys as you describe there's no nasty diesel engine issues, but once out on the open road, or on a long journey a big 6 or 8 cyl diesel engine comes into its own....even for lugging around all though batteries.
Quite why manufacturers like RR/BMW/Porsche/Audi etc are not building diesel hybrids on the large SUV's is beyond my understanding. You'd think they make what people want to buy?
Who would buy it? Diesel hybrid would make much more sense, as around town and short journeys as you describe there's no nasty diesel engine issues, but once out on the open road, or on a long journey a big 6 or 8 cyl diesel engine comes into its own....even for lugging around all though batteries.
Quite why manufacturers like RR/BMW/Porsche/Audi etc are not building diesel hybrids on the large SUV's is beyond my understanding. You'd think they make what people want to buy?
Emissions higher so higher BIK, not actually getting away from diesel which is sort of the point, probably not avoid ulez, so would sort of defeat the purpose?
We need batteries that do 400 miles really.
gizlaroc said:
NewUsername said:
It totally depends on your usage profile
eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
Is it? eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
I have an e91 320i and an F31 320d.
The 320i is a much nicer car to drive, but the 320d is an ED and will return 65mpg on a run compared to around 48mpg on the 320d doing the same journey.
The new 320i is even better for motorway work in many ways being turbo, it feels like a nicer sounding, smoother diesel with more revs to play with when you want them.
But, you will be looking at 40mpg vs 55mpg doing a trip.
gizlaroc said:
Who would buy it?
Emissions higher so higher BIK, not actually getting away from diesel which is sort of the point, probably not avoid ulez, so would sort of defeat the purpose?
We need batteries that do 400 miles really.
Mercedes, Peugeot and I think Volvo have all tried diesel PHEV but I think they've all done it wrong.Emissions higher so higher BIK, not actually getting away from diesel which is sort of the point, probably not avoid ulez, so would sort of defeat the purpose?
We need batteries that do 400 miles really.
A diesel running at a constant load to supply a battery and electric motor would surely make better use of diesel's best characteristics?
Jimmy Recard said:
gizlaroc said:
NewUsername said:
It totally depends on your usage profile
eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
Is it? eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
I have an e91 320i and an F31 320d.
The 320i is a much nicer car to drive, but the 320d is an ED and will return 65mpg on a run compared to around 48mpg on the 320d doing the same journey.
The new 320i is even better for motorway work in many ways being turbo, it feels like a nicer sounding, smoother diesel with more revs to play with when you want them.
But, you will be looking at 40mpg vs 55mpg doing a trip.
That is my point.
If the petrol did 55mpg and the diesel only returned 40mpg doing the same would people honestly buy the diesel saying "It is worth it for the extra ___."
Fill in the blank.
I buy diesel to save me money, which, if we are honest, I'm sure we all do?
Same reason we buy a 320d rather than a 330d, or a 340i instead of an Alpina B3 or M3.
Don't get me wrong, I have been impressed with many diesels, the TDV8 Range Rover I loved, my 533d back in 2005 blew me away, the Alpina D3 is one of the best arguments for diesel ever imho, but not owned one.
But it is still one of those things where I would be buying it as it would help me justify the purchase, where as if it were the 5.0 supercharged RR, the 550i touring I would have probably felt it was a bit excessive for that sort of car.
I have no problem with the petrols I have had in things like M3, or even the E350 estate or 530i touring, and even more so in my Z4 Coupe etc.
But I still find a diesel is a sensible purchase somehow.
thiscocks said:
Yes but it's hardly a fair comparison with an E350 CDI and an E43 price-wise.
Even ignoring economy I'd still chose the 3.0l Diesel variants of all the mid-large Audi / BMW / Mercs over the equivalent 3.0l petrols. I prefer the way they don't need to be revved much and normally have longer gearing for better motorway cruising. Also the diesels have a much better range which is a big bonus when you do long journeys.
I seem to remeber most road testers prefered the 3l diesel Jaguar XF over the petrol varient and actually said the diesel was the better unit than the 3l petrol.
But I wasn't talking about fair comparisons. I was saying it was a money based decision. Even ignoring economy I'd still chose the 3.0l Diesel variants of all the mid-large Audi / BMW / Mercs over the equivalent 3.0l petrols. I prefer the way they don't need to be revved much and normally have longer gearing for better motorway cruising. Also the diesels have a much better range which is a big bonus when you do long journeys.
I seem to remeber most road testers prefered the 3l diesel Jaguar XF over the petrol varient and actually said the diesel was the better unit than the 3l petrol.
Well, I have owned the E350d and the E350 petrol, the M276 3.5 litre with 306hp.
The petrol was just in a different league to drive, silky smooth round town, you couldn't even feel the engine running at lights, super smooth to drive slowly which is something I really noticed when getting back into the diesel (I had a C350cdi for a while along side the E350) the petrol was considerably quicker too, but it did have 40hp of course.
The biggest surprise was economy, it was roughly 10% behind the diesel in all scenarios apart from the shcool run, about the same in summer and the petrol actually nudged it in winter, used to do 27mpg over the 6 miles compared to 26mpg on the e350d.
The best bit was price, I bought at 3 years old, due to the UKs fear of petrol while diesels with 60k on them were still £21k+ I paid £13750 for the petrol, they simply couldn't sell it. I sold it 2.5 years later having done nearly 80k miles and got £12500 for it, where as diesels were around £10k.
That was more good timing as more people started to want petrol again, but still good.
Regarding E350d vs E43, the fact is because the UK are scared of petrol, we don't get them here, the E400 is the E350d's opposite, same sort of price, both turbo etc. It is a shame, I think Mercedes stopped doing petrols just as the UK started to want them again. It was poor timing, I stopped buying them as there was nothing I wanted at the price I could afford.
It was either 4cyl petrols or AMGs, hence the E350d would win, but if money was not an issue I would have the E43, I don't for one minute try and pretend the diesel is the better car, it is the car I could afford. That was my point.
gizlaroc said:
NewUsername said:
It totally depends on your usage profile
eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
Is it? eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
I have an e91 320i and an F31 320d.
The 320i is a much nicer car to drive, but the 320d is an ED and will return 65mpg on a run compared to around 48mpg on the 320d doing the same journey.
The new 320i is even better for motorway work in many ways being turbo, it feels like a nicer sounding, smoother diesel with more revs to play with when you want them.
But, you will be looking at 40mpg vs 55mpg doing a trip.
Jimmy Recard said:
gizlaroc said:
NewUsername said:
It totally depends on your usage profile
eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
Is it? eg I commute loads and i use an auto 320d as a daily, its a great car on the motorway, loads of torque etc etc. Its a way better tool for that job than a 320i. No doubt about it at all.
I have an e91 320i and an F31 320d.
The 320i is a much nicer car to drive, but the 320d is an ED and will return 65mpg on a run compared to around 48mpg on the 320d doing the same journey.
The new 320i is even better for motorway work in many ways being turbo, it feels like a nicer sounding, smoother diesel with more revs to play with when you want them.
But, you will be looking at 40mpg vs 55mpg doing a trip.
320d vs 320i
Diesel gives more performance more of the time and huge range.
No brainer for commuting (160+ miles a day)
gizlaroc said:
thiscocks said:
Yes but it's hardly a fair comparison with an E350 CDI and an E43 price-wise.
Even ignoring economy I'd still chose the 3.0l Diesel variants of all the mid-large Audi / BMW / Mercs over the equivalent 3.0l petrols. I prefer the way they don't need to be revved much and normally have longer gearing for better motorway cruising. Also the diesels have a much better range which is a big bonus when you do long journeys.
I seem to remeber most road testers prefered the 3l diesel Jaguar XF over the petrol varient and actually said the diesel was the better unit than the 3l petrol.
But I wasn't talking about fair comparisons. I was saying it was a money based decision. Even ignoring economy I'd still chose the 3.0l Diesel variants of all the mid-large Audi / BMW / Mercs over the equivalent 3.0l petrols. I prefer the way they don't need to be revved much and normally have longer gearing for better motorway cruising. Also the diesels have a much better range which is a big bonus when you do long journeys.
I seem to remeber most road testers prefered the 3l diesel Jaguar XF over the petrol varient and actually said the diesel was the better unit than the 3l petrol.
Well, I have owned the E350d and the E350 petrol, the M276 3.5 litre with 306hp.
The petrol was just in a different league to drive, silky smooth round town, you couldn't even feel the engine running at lights, super smooth to drive slowly which is something I really noticed when getting back into the diesel (I had a C350cdi for a while along side the E350) the petrol was considerably quicker too, but it did have 40hp of course.
The biggest surprise was economy, it was roughly 10% behind the diesel in all scenarios apart from the shcool run, about the same in summer and the petrol actually nudged it in winter, used to do 27mpg over the 6 miles compared to 26mpg on the e350d.
The best bit was price, I bought at 3 years old, due to the UKs fear of petrol while diesels with 60k on them were still £21k+ I paid £13750 for the petrol, they simply couldn't sell it. I sold it 2.5 years later having done nearly 80k miles and got £12500 for it, where as diesels were around £10k.
That was more good timing as more people started to want petrol again, but still good.
Regarding E350d vs E43, the fact is because the UK are scared of petrol, we don't get them here, the E400 is the E350d's opposite, same sort of price, both turbo etc. It is a shame, I think Mercedes stopped doing petrols just as the UK started to want them again. It was poor timing, I stopped buying them as there was nothing I wanted at the price I could afford.
It was either 4cyl petrols or AMGs, hence the E350d would win, but if money was not an issue I would have the E43, I don't for one minute try and pretend the diesel is the better car, it is the car I could afford. That was my point.
NewUsername said:
I don’t agree, It hasn’t got the torque and is barely making more power, (I would like to see a roll on 70-90 between the two) The diesel is just so much more driveable and demands much less effort to access its performance . Exactly what you want on a long distance commute. It has more performance more of the time than the equivalent 320i
You sound like someone who hasn't lived with one. What effort? You are talking autos for a start, the only effort is pressing the accelerator down.
NewUsername said:
I have to say and I’ve said it before on here a colleague and I had a cls350 and a cls350d on a months trial a couple of years ago and in real life the diesel was easier to extract the performance from with its big gobs of torque from low rpm,
Yeah that I agree with. That is also what I find incredibly dull about many diesels though.
NewUsername said:
...sure on a track the petrol would stroll away, on a commute from say Birmingham to Nottingham it wouldn’t.
And we have a winner! I was waiting for someone to say that nonsense.
Think about what you just wrote.
If it was a choice between diesel and electric, I'd choose diesel every time because at least they still have the character of an IC engine. Cars have been my obsession since before I was a toddler but quite honestly, even the fastest Tesla or whatever is about as interesting to me as my new fridge freezer. The day I'm forced out of my ICE cars is the day I put my house up for sale and then bugger off somewhere without the same restrictions.
gizlaroc said:
But I wasn't talking about fair comparisons. I was saying it was a money based decision.
Well, I have owned the E350d and the E350 petrol, the M276 3.5 litre with 306hp.
The petrol was just in a different league to drive, silky smooth round town, you couldn't even feel the engine running at lights, super smooth to drive slowly which is something I really noticed when getting back into the diesel (I had a C350cdi for a while along side the E350) the petrol was considerably quicker too, but it did have 40hp of course.
The biggest surprise was economy, it was roughly 10% behind the diesel in all scenarios apart from the shcool run, about the same in summer and the petrol actually nudged it in winter, used to do 27mpg over the 6 miles compared to 26mpg on the e350d.
The best bit was price, I bought at 3 years old, due to the UKs fear of petrol while diesels with 60k on them were still £21k+ I paid £13750 for the petrol, they simply couldn't sell it. I sold it 2.5 years later having done nearly 80k miles and got £12500 for it, where as diesels were around £10k.
That was more good timing as more people started to want petrol again, but still good.
Regarding E350d vs E43, the fact is because the UK are scared of petrol, we don't get them here, the E400 is the E350d's opposite, same sort of price, both turbo etc. It is a shame, I think Mercedes stopped doing petrols just as the UK started to want them again. It was poor timing, I stopped buying them as there was nothing I wanted at the price I could afford.
It was either 4cyl petrols or AMGs, hence the E350d would win, but if money was not an issue I would have the E43, I don't for one minute try and pretend the diesel is the better car, it is the car I could afford. That was my point.
I have an E220 diesel and an SL350 with the 3.7 litre V6. If I could cheaply transplant the SL engine into the E Class I would now that my annual mileage has dropped to about 6k or so. It is a lovely smooth engine and will do 30 mpg ish on a long run, although town driving is not so good, but at 6k miles a year so what.Well, I have owned the E350d and the E350 petrol, the M276 3.5 litre with 306hp.
The petrol was just in a different league to drive, silky smooth round town, you couldn't even feel the engine running at lights, super smooth to drive slowly which is something I really noticed when getting back into the diesel (I had a C350cdi for a while along side the E350) the petrol was considerably quicker too, but it did have 40hp of course.
The biggest surprise was economy, it was roughly 10% behind the diesel in all scenarios apart from the shcool run, about the same in summer and the petrol actually nudged it in winter, used to do 27mpg over the 6 miles compared to 26mpg on the e350d.
The best bit was price, I bought at 3 years old, due to the UKs fear of petrol while diesels with 60k on them were still £21k+ I paid £13750 for the petrol, they simply couldn't sell it. I sold it 2.5 years later having done nearly 80k miles and got £12500 for it, where as diesels were around £10k.
That was more good timing as more people started to want petrol again, but still good.
Regarding E350d vs E43, the fact is because the UK are scared of petrol, we don't get them here, the E400 is the E350d's opposite, same sort of price, both turbo etc. It is a shame, I think Mercedes stopped doing petrols just as the UK started to want them again. It was poor timing, I stopped buying them as there was nothing I wanted at the price I could afford.
It was either 4cyl petrols or AMGs, hence the E350d would win, but if money was not an issue I would have the E43, I don't for one minute try and pretend the diesel is the better car, it is the car I could afford. That was my point.
I would however be left with a 316k mile SL220 diesel which I doubt would be in much demand.
Actually thinking about that they both have the 5g box as well......................mm......................
gizlaroc said:
NewUsername said:
You couldn’t be more wrong
320d vs 320i
Diesel gives more performance more of the time and huge range.
No brainer for commuting (160+ miles a day)
OK, glad you're happy with your car. 320d vs 320i
Diesel gives more performance more of the time and huge range.
No brainer for commuting (160+ miles a day)
I can only talk from my experience.
You asked for an example where the diesel equivalent was better and for MY usage profile both a E350d and a 320d are preferable to their petrol equivalents by virtue of how they drive nothing else.
Anecdotally i've never particularly found diesels cheaper to run than petrols as I tend to use more tyres and the services are more costly which more or less off sets against any fuel savings
aeropilot said:
I don't care how good they may get (or not) as I find Musk an odious individual, and I'd never put my money into his pocket.
I could see me going down the electric car route when I am close to retirement in 10 years time...(or earlier?) as my journey profile then would be compatible with EV....but only if they are price compatible with ICE by then.
I'm not so fussed 'who' gets the money, if the product is excellent.I could see me going down the electric car route when I am close to retirement in 10 years time...(or earlier?) as my journey profile then would be compatible with EV....but only if they are price compatible with ICE by then.
However I agree with your point that they need a number of years to become as good as they need to be to be desirable.
Pooh said:
Maybe you should get a test drive in one, I am a total petrol head but I have really enjoyed the Teslas I have driven.
Chris Harris seemed pretty impressed, I would not buy one instead of an Alfa Giulia QF if I wanted a fun car for low annual miles but for a high milage daily car with incredibly low running costs, it is hard to beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8R7kZGvAUk
As for the battery capacity, a low mileage second-hand car should not lose a great deal of capacity, my Zoe has done 66k miles and is still at 90% capacity.
A Tesla Model 3 "Performance" is £56k. An Audi RS6, used, is about £35k for the outgoing model.Chris Harris seemed pretty impressed, I would not buy one instead of an Alfa Giulia QF if I wanted a fun car for low annual miles but for a high milage daily car with incredibly low running costs, it is hard to beat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8R7kZGvAUk
As for the battery capacity, a low mileage second-hand car should not lose a great deal of capacity, my Zoe has done 66k miles and is still at 90% capacity.
Not a chance Tesla.
As for this Renault Zoe thing you refer to, it's a shopping cart and I cannot find a definition of the battery it uses. Tesla use the Panasonic-licensed 18650 cell and they degrade over time if you use them for distance driving (which would be my usage model).
There's a company in California that bought a load of the bigger ones, the people carrier Tesla things and they used them to go to Vegas and back and do fair distances - they suffered numerous challenges with battery capacity decreasing swiftly in a number of months.
Electric cars are a long way off - I've every expectation they'll bridge the gap, but right now, they aren't there.
Fattyfat said:
gizlaroc said:
And we have a winner!
I was waiting for someone to say that nonsense.
Think about what you just wrote.
A 1.0 Aygo wouldn't be far behind on that journey and will use less fuel than both.I was waiting for someone to say that nonsense.
Think about what you just wrote.
gizlaroc said:
NewUsername said:
I don’t agree, It hasn’t got the torque and is barely making more power, (I would like to see a roll on 70-90 between the two) The diesel is just so much more driveable and demands much less effort to access its performance . Exactly what you want on a long distance commute. It has more performance more of the time than the equivalent 320i
You sound like someone who hasn't lived with one. What effort? You are talking autos for a start, the only effort is pressing the accelerator down.
Laughable
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff