Would you still go Diesel...
Discussion
phil1979 said:
In my case, I bought nearly new - a 2017 model with all the kit, for around £33k. A similar age and mileage GLC43 would have been around £10k more.
Yeah, if buying used the 350d makes a lot of sense. But that is what I was saying, many buy new not doing the proper maths, they buy the diesel thinking it is saving money, the reality is, most of the time, it actually costs many owners more. RobDickinson said:
Yes we do. There are many studies.
Even without, not choking people with fumes in urban areas is better.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record to some:Even without, not choking people with fumes in urban areas is better.
According to the govt's own figures, the air is the cleanest it's ever been, by really some margin compared to 1990 (which doesn't seem that long ago to someone as old as me). Ammonia aside (which is an issue for the countryside) all of the key pollutants we worry about are at their lowest levels, AND, more importantly, the air is just getting ever cleaner.
I realise there are some issues with public transport in London, such as buses in Oxford street and the air quality underground, but the other fact is that the people who live the longest in the UK live near these problem areas.
That's how 'choked' people are getting.
gizlaroc said:
Hoofy said:
It's an awkward term but I use it to refer to those cars with diesel engines that have a similar sporty performance to what you'd expect out of something more interesting. 450lbft of torque and 6 seconds to 60, rapid gear changes to keep delivering the power and what seemed to be a firmer suspension and tighter steering than normal do it for me. 4WD family cars are supposed to be dull and slow.
https://youtu.be/tCebrhEG5JU
Oh, and 32mpg about town!
But the GLC43 over 3 years works out slightly cheaper. https://youtu.be/tCebrhEG5JU
Oh, and 32mpg about town!
The GLC350d is £3k cheaper, but the residuals on the 43 AMG are £9000 better, so you are looking at £6000 less to fund over 3 years, reality will be even better than that, they always are with AMG models.
Then we have MPG, the 43 AMG is getting 26mpg round town and 35mpg on a run, so for someone doing 12000 miles a year will pay £300 a year more in fuel, so £1000 over the 3 years. Not really making a dent in the £6000 extra you will lose in depreciation going 350d.
Yet, so many will not do the maths and buy the 350d thinking it is the cheaper option.
Edit: Sorry!
Didn't see two people had replied saying they had bought the 350d.
Still an awesome car, but my point stands, the AMG is a better buy.
Edited by gizlaroc on Monday 4th February 14:47
Glosphil said:
Ron99 said:
They don't make them like they used to!
Once you put a DPF on a diesel engine it becomes unpredictable.
Out of warranty it becomes a potential money-pit; having to pay a dealer a few times per year to clear or replace a blocked DPF that the car gave no advance warning of.
A few times a year!!! Rather an exaggeration. My diesel is 6 years old; has been driven only 16K total in the last 3 years with only a few journeys that weren't local and no DPF problems.Once you put a DPF on a diesel engine it becomes unpredictable.
Out of warranty it becomes a potential money-pit; having to pay a dealer a few times per year to clear or replace a blocked DPF that the car gave no advance warning of.
You may not like diesels but exaggeration only weakens your case.
I'm not really a fan of diesels (the sound, mainly, but also the necessity of forced induction and low red line), but the main reason I have never owned one is that there has never been a suitable equivalent available in any car I've owned.
- Jaguar XK 5.0 – Jaguar have never sold a sports car
- Fiat Panda 100HP - a tiny 1.3 was available, but only on the dreary cooking model with the soggy suspension
- Jaguar X-Type 3.0 - these sold huge numbers of diesels, but they were FWD and had the 4 pot out of a Transit van; not at all comparable to the AWD V6 petrol
- Chrysler Crossfire 3.2 - no diesel option sold
- Ford Cougar 2.5 - no diesel option sold
- Renault Megane Coupe 1.6 - no diesel option sold
- SAAB 9-5 2.3t - no diesel option sold at the time mine was manufactured, though both 4 and 6 cylinder diesels appeared later
- Rover 214 - a very old-fashioned Peugeot diesel was offered, but power was down on the little 1.4 K-series
access_denied said:
.
Only issue with diesels is they seem to need a good run or it messes up the DPF. Though it seems the newer petrol cars are getting particulate filters as well.
.
Newer petrol cars are getting GPFs because their particulates are much, much smaller than those of diesels, and more insidious.Only issue with diesels is they seem to need a good run or it messes up the DPF. Though it seems the newer petrol cars are getting particulate filters as well.
.
heebeegeetee said:
According to the govt's own figures, the air is the cleanest it's ever been, by really some margin compared to 1990 (which doesn't seem that long ago to someone as old as me). Ammonia aside (which is an issue for the countryside) all of the key pollutants we worry about are at their lowest levels, AND, more importantly, the air is just getting ever cleaner.
Do we worry though? Outside of here I don't ever hear it even mentioned, no-one I ever talk to has said anything about emissions ever, maybe it's some London thing?heebeegeetee said:
RobDickinson said:
Yes we do. There are many studies.
Even without, not choking people with fumes in urban areas is better.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record to some:Even without, not choking people with fumes in urban areas is better.
According to the govt's own figures, the air is the cleanest it's ever been, by really some margin compared to 1990 (which doesn't seem that long ago to someone as old as me). Ammonia aside (which is an issue for the countryside) all of the key pollutants we worry about are at their lowest levels, AND, more importantly, the air is just getting ever cleaner.
I realise there are some issues with public transport in London, such as buses in Oxford street and the air quality underground, but the other fact is that the people who live the longest in the UK live near these problem areas.
That's how 'choked' people are getting.
There is still no viable alternative for people who cover long distances in large, heavy cars.
Who honestly wants, say, a petrol E Class Mercedes to do 15-20k a year in?
The problem with diesel was people buying things like a Mini Cooper D to do 5k a year around town in when the petrol alternative was far better. Now because so many people did stupid things like that those of us who drive cars and use them in a way that genuinely suits diesel are being penalised.
Lets not pretend that CO2 suddenly isn't an issue anymore and that burning loads of petrol is suddenly ok in ways it wasn't 5 years ago.
Who honestly wants, say, a petrol E Class Mercedes to do 15-20k a year in?
The problem with diesel was people buying things like a Mini Cooper D to do 5k a year around town in when the petrol alternative was far better. Now because so many people did stupid things like that those of us who drive cars and use them in a way that genuinely suits diesel are being penalised.
Lets not pretend that CO2 suddenly isn't an issue anymore and that burning loads of petrol is suddenly ok in ways it wasn't 5 years ago.
Edited by Fox- on Monday 4th February 18:14
cmvtec said:
Currently driving a 2.2 auto X-Type diesel. I held on to a petrol until 2016, despite 25k+ a year.
Never, ever again. EGR/DPF etc issues. It sounds like a taxi and barely achieves 35mpg.
Surprising to hear - I had a 2.0 diesel and the MPG was fantastic, although it was a manual and I did a lot of motorway driving.Never, ever again. EGR/DPF etc issues. It sounds like a taxi and barely achieves 35mpg.
Agree on the noise though, mine sounded like an old Transit van!
I had a bit of a conundrum recently as I wanted a large, nearly new exec saloon. For my budget, basically it was a 4cyl petrol or a 6cyl diesel, the diesel was a no brainer for me. A 6cyl petrol would have been nice (540i vs 530d) but it cost many thousands more to buy and the official combined mpg figure of the 530d was 50% higher than the 540i (60 vs 40). Over the life of the car (I will keep it 10 to 15 years) that’s quite a lot of fuel. Admittedly, we need to see what the future holds, tax wise.
The 530d is a lovely drive in my opinion and noise/refinement is great. For long distance cruising with some real overtaking shove it’s a great car.
The 530d is a lovely drive in my opinion and noise/refinement is great. For long distance cruising with some real overtaking shove it’s a great car.
Welcome to my nighmare, my vans falling apart, I want to buy for long term (van will need £3k in racking, deadbolt s etc) only new vans suitable are diesel only, but here in London everyone's increasing looking to gouge you, punishment rates on pay parking etc.
So I need to find money I don't quite have to buy something I don't quite want that the scum bags are then going to punish me for having on the pretext they're trying to discourage me.
So I need to find money I don't quite have to buy something I don't quite want that the scum bags are then going to punish me for having on the pretext they're trying to discourage me.
I probably wont buy another diesel car. I think the latest breed of turbo petrols offer decent enough efficiency now and avoid the demonization that taints all diesels. Also, you cant ignore the current ridiculous 10p a litre difference in the price of the fuels.
That said, people have always ignored the virtues of the diesel car. Namely, having the grunt low down in the rev range where its useful, the obvious good touring economy and the lovely top gear motorway instant thrust. When diesel sales took off in this country in the early 2000s, most petrol engine alternatives were n/a and therefore could feel quite weedy in every day situations. For example, I went from a 2 litre n/a Mazda 6 to an Insignia diesel. Both probably accelerate from 0-100 in a similar time, but the Insignia is much faster day to day, because the grunt is low down and not at the top end of the rev range.
The latest turbo petrols now allow you to enjoy decentish MPG, with the nice torquey delivery that we've grown to like from our diesels, so I think the writing is definitely on the wall for diesels, especially with all the air quality concerns.
That said, people have always ignored the virtues of the diesel car. Namely, having the grunt low down in the rev range where its useful, the obvious good touring economy and the lovely top gear motorway instant thrust. When diesel sales took off in this country in the early 2000s, most petrol engine alternatives were n/a and therefore could feel quite weedy in every day situations. For example, I went from a 2 litre n/a Mazda 6 to an Insignia diesel. Both probably accelerate from 0-100 in a similar time, but the Insignia is much faster day to day, because the grunt is low down and not at the top end of the rev range.
The latest turbo petrols now allow you to enjoy decentish MPG, with the nice torquey delivery that we've grown to like from our diesels, so I think the writing is definitely on the wall for diesels, especially with all the air quality concerns.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff