Is petrol finally making a come back?
Discussion
Terminator X said:
Mmm my workhorse diesel gives a regular 50mpg (checked) vs petrols above at 32mpg so that's an extra 180 miles assuming a 10g tank. Can't do the maths on the phone - is the petrol good value then as petrol is cheaper albeit diesel gives more mpg?
TX.
Well the diesel at 147.9 will cost £27 to do 200 miles. The petrol at 141.9 will cost £40 to do 200 miles. So if you did 200 miles every week the diesel saves you nearly £700 a year.TX.
If you're interested an LPG one - allowing for a small drop in economy - would do that 200 miles on £26 at 79.9, so diesel economy without a diesel
Ford have definitely been pushing the technology on petrol engines to get the mpg's comparable with diesels.
I've just sold my 57/08 Pug 207 HDi 1.6 - it regularly returned 50mpg mixed driving and 60mpg as a motorway mile muncher. Replaced with a brand new Fiesta petrol (1.4, not the Econetic) - it's returning 47 mpg mixed so far. A tad out from the book figures, but am impressed.
Reason for change - mileage is dropping by 8k a year and most driving will be around town stuff.
Is it the new 3 series BMW petrol engine that has a higher mpg return than their last diesel ones? Certainly there's lot of talk of changing cars amongst friends/family who are currently diesel and seriously thinking of moving back to petrol once they crunch the numbers.
I've just sold my 57/08 Pug 207 HDi 1.6 - it regularly returned 50mpg mixed driving and 60mpg as a motorway mile muncher. Replaced with a brand new Fiesta petrol (1.4, not the Econetic) - it's returning 47 mpg mixed so far. A tad out from the book figures, but am impressed.
Reason for change - mileage is dropping by 8k a year and most driving will be around town stuff.
Is it the new 3 series BMW petrol engine that has a higher mpg return than their last diesel ones? Certainly there's lot of talk of changing cars amongst friends/family who are currently diesel and seriously thinking of moving back to petrol once they crunch the numbers.
They all have, with some rather interesting methods and results.
Ford are pushing the Ecoboost (small capacity, turbocharger) thing: the 1.0 3cyl turbo in the Focus is reported to be very good (125bhp and the torque of the 1.6). It's due in the revised Fiesta, too.
Mazda are pushing the "Skyactive" high-compression petrol engine, as well as the lightweight stuff (Mazda 2).
Peugeot are doing the small engine/turbocharger and lightweight thing (208).
All, IIRC, are claiming (yes, I know...) MPG figures in the high 60s, IIRC. Without a diesel cloud or motor/generator in sight.
Ford are pushing the Ecoboost (small capacity, turbocharger) thing: the 1.0 3cyl turbo in the Focus is reported to be very good (125bhp and the torque of the 1.6). It's due in the revised Fiesta, too.
Mazda are pushing the "Skyactive" high-compression petrol engine, as well as the lightweight stuff (Mazda 2).
Peugeot are doing the small engine/turbocharger and lightweight thing (208).
All, IIRC, are claiming (yes, I know...) MPG figures in the high 60s, IIRC. Without a diesel cloud or motor/generator in sight.
I'm going petrol for my next one, I've decided. I've been doing 20-30k pa over the last few years which will change to around 8-10k from the looks of it. I'll not need something as 'respectable' (read whitegoods) so I'm considering a larger engined, slightly older petrol car. Maybe a barge, I haven't decided yet.
My last diesel cost me a good couple of grand to keep going, and was going to cost more when I traded it. DMF/injectors went one after another in consecutive months, the fuel pump was looking ropey as well
Not looking forward to dropping 20'ish mpg but I don't think I'll be any more familiar with the petrol station girls
My last diesel cost me a good couple of grand to keep going, and was going to cost more when I traded it. DMF/injectors went one after another in consecutive months, the fuel pump was looking ropey as well
Not looking forward to dropping 20'ish mpg but I don't think I'll be any more familiar with the petrol station girls
So as well as increases in mpg to new petrol engines, is reducing mileage/driving type the other deciding factor that maybe swinging people back towards petrol? A sign of the economic times?
My father has a 4 year old diesel Focus - he's done 8k miles in total due to unforseen long term illness that began between ordering and taking delivery of it - most of those are 3 mile return trips to the local GP! He's had a replacement dpf and other issues due to the lack of motorway type driving a diesel needs.
I had a blocked wastegate on the turbo (luckily found and sorted, didn't fancy a £1k bill if that blew).
My father has a 4 year old diesel Focus - he's done 8k miles in total due to unforseen long term illness that began between ordering and taking delivery of it - most of those are 3 mile return trips to the local GP! He's had a replacement dpf and other issues due to the lack of motorway type driving a diesel needs.
I had a blocked wastegate on the turbo (luckily found and sorted, didn't fancy a £1k bill if that blew).
Migsy said:
Is it the new 3 series BMW petrol engine that has a higher mpg return than their last diesel ones? Certainly there's lot of talk of changing cars amongst friends/family who are currently diesel and seriously thinking of moving back to petrol once they crunch the numbers.
What kind of number crunching are they doing, as I don't understand the logic. 
2nd hand there isn't much difference.I reckon that the tests they use to test the fuel effiency of a vehicle are hindering progress. For example, the gearing on most of the normal petrol cars I've driven lately is such that at 60mph, the MPG is pretty good. But at 70+, the engine is revving to high to be frugal.
Not being a mechanic, I'm not sure how well my car's engine would cope with an extra gear, but it does seem geared for looking good on the test cycle.
I mean, they say it get 47 mpg on a run. It does, at 57 mph!
Not being a mechanic, I'm not sure how well my car's engine would cope with an extra gear, but it does seem geared for looking good on the test cycle.
I mean, they say it get 47 mpg on a run. It does, at 57 mph!
matthias73 said:
I mean, they say it get 47 mpg on a run.
No they don't - have a look at the driving cycle in the test. Extra Urban is not 'on a run' - people think it is because in the real world the extra urban figure used to roughly corelate with what you'd get on a run, until the manufacturers got good at winning at the test.matthias73 said:
I reckon that the tests they use to test the fuel effiency of a vehicle are hindering progress. For example, the gearing on most of the normal petrol cars I've driven lately is such that at 60mph, the MPG is pretty good. But at 70+, the engine is revving to high to be frugal.
I've always had a bit of a grump with Ford about this - the gearing on their cars over the last 8 years or so has been more inline with kmh than mph speed limits. I guess EU is a bigger market if what I think is true, but in some of the 6 speeds diesels they tend to feel too high revving or too low at 30/40 mphFox- said:
matthias73 said:
I mean, they say it get 47 mpg on a run.
No they don't - have a look at the driving cycle in the test. Extra Urban is not 'on a run' - people think it is because in the real world the extra urban figure used to roughly corelate with what you'd get on a run, until the manufacturers got good at winning at the test.matthias73 said:
Look, you are getting a bit picky here. I forgot the word they used (extra urban) so I just replaced it with that.
I'm not getting picky, I think its an important point. The tests are ridiculously specific and do not represent a journey anyone actually does. They are even performed on a rolling road at a constant temperature with no wind resistence.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff