Quick Question!

[mikearwas]

Just having a debate with my dad and wondered if you lot could help.

The question is this (I know there's going to be ifs and buts: Generally speaking is there more to go wrong on a modern diesel engine or a modern petrol engine. Take the diesel as Turbo, the petrol as NA.

Thanks!

[marshalla]

Petrol - it needs an electrical system to produce sparks.

[ModernAndy]

Probably more to go wrong on the Diesel engine due to high pressure injection and other stuff. Basic petrol engines are relatively simpler I'd say.

[Agent57]

Diesels need more servicing.

[Blue Oval84]

N/A Petrol would always be my choice for reliability, especially out of warranty.

In fact only this evening I set up an Auto Trader search for any N/A 2.0 Mondeos with low mileage as I want a reliable, yet cheap car.

[HustleRussell]

I reckon during the last 10 years or so, Diesel engines have become more prone to failure than petrols, generally speaking. DMFs, EGRs, DPFs etc and high pressure fuel injection systems have made higher mileage diesel cars into time bombs waiting to dish out a four-figure repair bill.

[Liquid Tuna]

N/A petrol wins every time, shirley? There's so much st to go wrong on a modern diesel. I wouldn't ever consider one unless I was doing the miles to warrant it or they tax petrol engines or petrol fuel beyond it being fiscally viable.

[Spitfire2]

Used to be the case that diesels were simpler and more reliable but modern diesels are complex beasts and theres more to go wrong. I'm apply with diesel for the company car but would go petrol if buying myself - as I would buy a few years old at least.

[BFG TERRANO]

Very generall question so a general answer- if a diesel needs big work its a big bill compared with the same petrol model. There are some expensive bits that can and do fail. Add to this the extra cost per litre of fuel and its another debate about what's actually the cheaper engine to live with. To answer the question- more to go wrong with a diesel. Look up DPF and egr valves for a starter.

[JREwing]

A simple petrol is more likely to last I always think (and find from experience).

[ModernAndy]

HustleRussell said:

I reckon during the last 10 years or so, Diesel engines have become more prone to failure than petrols, generally speaking. DMFs, EGRs, DPFs etc and high pressure fuel injection systems have made higher mileage diesel cars into time bombs waiting to dish out a four-figure repair bill.

Quite a bit of truth in that. Throw in the turbo as well and there's way more to go wrong than a basic petrol engine. A twin-turbo petrol with variable valve timing, other tech and high specific output would maybe be a different story.

[B'stard Child]

ModernAndy said:

HustleRussell said:

I reckon during the last 10 years or so, Diesel engines have become more prone to failure than petrols, generally speaking. DMFs, EGRs, DPFs etc and high pressure fuel injection systems have made higher mileage diesel cars into time bombs waiting to dish out a four-figure repair bill.

Quite a bit of truth in that. Throw in the turbo as well and there's way more to go wrong than a basic petrol engine. A twin-turbo petrol with variable valve timing, other tech and high specific output would maybe be a different story.

For me when oil burners started getting closer to same bhp/Litre as petrol equivilents the rot started to set in as far as high maintenance potential

[Agent57]

Diesel costs more than petrol too. More noise, less refinement.

Unless you do mega high miles don't bother.