Wednesday 4th June 2008

Diesel Cars 'Take Years To Make Sense'

Study shows it could take eight years for a diesel car to save you money

---

Do diesels really save you money?

Growing numbers of people may be buying diesel cars to save money but a new study has found that it may take years for the purchase to pay off.

In fact the analysis found that the typical three-year-old diesel car will need to be run for a further seven years before the financial benefits outweigh those of a comparable second-hand petrol model.

It has been found that the average three-year-old mid-sized family diesel car currently costs between £600 and £800 more than its petrol counterpart to buy, but the annual fuel bill is currently only £105 less.

Annual fuel costs for a typical three-year-old diesel car currently stand at £1,373 - up 25 per cent, or £273, over May 2007. 

For the equivalent petrol car, fuel bills are now £1,478, up 15 per cent, or £186, compared to May last year.

"As well as the prospect of lower fuel bills, some consumers are attracted to used diesel models in the expectation that depreciation will be lower compared to an equivalent petrol car,’ said Adrian Rushmore, managing editor at EurotaxGlass's, which commissioned the report. 

‘However, if the average three-year-old used car was retained for seven years in order to make the most of the lower fuel prices, the premium over a petrol model of the same age might, by then, only be around £100.’

[layabout]

I hope this shuts up some of the smug diesel owners.Such a false economy.

Edited by layabout on Wednesday 4th June 12:40

[Oat$y]

Not all people buy Diesel cars for economy, diesels have more torque, and are better for towing. I own both petrol and Diesel cars, Each has it purpose and if I do a long journey the Diesel takes the miles due to less stops for fuel.

[chr15b]

layabout - i think i found your dummy

There are so many things to take into account when working out if diesel has a cost benefit.

all i know is if i 'clog-it' in a typical 2 litre diesel car i get 40 ish mpg - in a 2 litre petrol i usually get about 25 - not that i spend all my time thrashing the car that is

[layabout]

chr15b said:

layabout - i think i found your dummy

There are so many things to take into account when working out if diesel has a cost benefit.

all i know is if i 'clog-it' in a typical 2 litre diesel car i get 40 ish mpg - in a 2 litre petrol i usually get about 25 - not that i spend all my time thrashing the car that is

My point is that i know plenty of people that have bought diesels in the past,that have gone back to petrol cars due to higher running costs & not getting the mileage they were expecting before buying the car.I had a diesel a while back just as a run around & i was shocked at the running costs compared to petrol.The one benefit for diesels i can see is if/when the new car tax comes in,then people will save a bit on tax.But i would never buy a car based on that,as i refuse to choose a car based on what car tax bracket it comes in.

[jwo]

layabout said:

I hope this shuts up some of the smug diesel owners.Such a false economy.

Edited by layabout on Wednesday 4th June 12:40

Only if you don't do the miles. >15k per year diesels are more financially economical. Plus the torque from a quality diesel is ...quality!

From a smug diesel owner with petrol car for the weekend!

[ucb]

I bought my diesel SEAT because of the mileage I do - 25-30k per year. At approx. 60mpg+ (750 miles from 11.5 gallons) it's way way more economical than my old CTR.
I'm sure if you're mileage is 10k a year then petrol is clearly attractive, but I think you have to way up the whole senario- if you get a band G VED car, there will be significant savings to be made from switching to a lower VED rather than what you fill up with.

[Tony*T3]

I have a diesel work horse. It does around 35000 a year, I never service it (its an Audi 1.9Tdi Estate) and it has yet to let me down. I bought it second hand, it was three years old, list price was £24k, I paid 8k. It has 191,000 on the clock. I intend to run it until its dead so am not at all worried about depreciation.

My only spend on it is the occasional litre of oil, new pads once, new tyres at the front every 20k miles, rear 30k miles.

it needed a new rear number plate bulb at its last MOT.

I get 600 miles from a tank when I'm not in a hurry, 500 miles when I am.

Am I saving money yet? I think I am.

[Callan.T89]

There is far more to consider than just the costs mentioned in this report. I have recently bought an Audi 80 TDI SE as a runaround I would to add that you can run most diesels on a mixture of any old fuel as long as there is some Diesel in there (more options for the future), also an equivelant age Audi 2.0 petrol would be rubbish at towing and long distance cruising and my car does get a genuine 45-50mpg in normal driving.

Also due to the lower stresses to the engine my car has now just passed 212,000 miles and still runs perfect.

Edit - just seen above post and it looks like Audi 80 Tdi estates are the way forward then + they have a massive load space.

Edited by Callan.T89 on Wednesday 4th June 13:13

[designateddriver]

I ran a 2.6 V6 petrol audi 100 avant for 3 years and could never do more than 500 miles to a tank (30mpg) then switched to a 2.5TDI 100 avant and now its 800 to the same size tank (45mpg), I do 25-30K/year though.
both were used and for about the same cash - £1500 with over 100K miles on the petrol and the diesel had 230K when I bought it.
both very reliable - thats a lot of savings and a direct comparison car for car.

[chr15b]

Tony*T3 said:

I have a diesel work horse. It does around 35000 a year, I never service it (its an Audi 1.9Tdi Estate) and it has yet to let me down. I bought it second hand, it was three years old, list price was £24k, I paid 8k. It has 191,000 on the clock. I intend to run it until its dead so am not at all worried about depreciation.

My only spend on it is the occasional litre of oil, new pads once, new tyres at the front every 20k miles, rear 30k miles.

it needed a new rear number plate bulb at its last MOT.

I get 600 miles from a tank when I'm not in a hurry, 500 miles when I am.

Am I saving money yet? I think I am.

my point exactly, on my petrol 1.8 i get 500 miles+ if i'm happy to cruise at 60 on the motorway or <200 if i stick my foot down... way too big a variance.

[cowellsj]

How many people actually keep a car that long?
For people who change their car every 5yrs or less it must cost more to have a diesel then??

[nigelfr]

The comparisons sound a bit vague as well: mid sized diesel vs mid sized petrol: lots of room for cherry picking there.

I've got a Nissan Primera 2.2 diesel: goes like stink and if I keep to NSL on the motorway I get over 55mpg. Try telling me I'm not saving money.

[misterduncan]

Diesels cost more, but the figures don't take into account that you can sell it for more.

[Strangely Brown]

I did the numbers when I was looking to replace the Merc a while ago.

I was getting a little concerned that the Merc was only returning 25mpg so I started looking at used diesel VWs. When I plugged all of the numbers into a spreadsheet that took into account the purchase cost of the new car, the trade in/sale of the old one, the difference in running and maintenance costs etc, it worked out that I wouldn't actually start saving ANY money at all for almost three years.

I have kept the Merc and I'll revisit the question in three years time.

[Jackass]

cowellsj said:

How many people actually keep a car that long?
For people who change their car every 5yrs or less it must cost more to have a diesel then??

Comparing an average petrol car with an average diesel car shows that it MAY cost more to have a diesel.

[insideline]

This article misses the point of why so many diesels are sold. It is because of the company car taxation rules in this country. Diesel powered vehicles are very efficient when it comes to C02 emmissions and therefore are very tax efficient for both comapny car drivers and the companies who purchase/lease the car in the first place.

I work for one of the large leasing companies and our fleet mix is now something like 75/25% diesel/petrol. 5 years ago this was nearer 40/60.The only changes in thst time have been to the BIK taxation rules that favour low c02 vehicles hence the huge rise in poularity.

The large volume of ex fleet vehicles hitting the used car market at 3 years old then naturally forces the private motorist into a diesel whether they like it or not.

[layabout]

misterduncan said:

Diesels cost more, but the figures don't take into account that you can sell it for more.

Read the last paragraph,it states resale value.

[nickpage]

I own a Golf Tdi cos I just love the smell when i fill her up and the slippery forecourt too!

No seriously, you can't brew your own petrol but you can brew your own bio-chip-fat-diesel and save big bucks.

Also servicing costs (if you bother) are cheaper and intervals are wider.

[Andy JB]

No brainer for lower mileage users:-

I've just chopped in a new Passat 2.0 TDi 6 spd which over 3k miles avaeraged 38mpg mixed but mainly motorway miles! For a diesel it wasn't bad and emulated a petrol power fairly well - but its was still dull, noisy, didn't rev, and wasn't a drivers car, plus consumption was relatively high.

I've now bought an older low mileage Audi A6 Avant V6 petrol which is larger and yet returns ave 30mpg on more local roads than motorway. Factor in the massive increase in driving pleasure, refinement etc etc plus the 15p litre difference in fuel price, lower maintenence, and the diesel story begins to loose its shine.

If i had bought a 2.5TDI Audi A6 it would have cost 3-4k more to buy and taken several years to repay in fuel bills the price difference to buy, plus the lack of driving pleasure, not quite the bargain.

[alex_123_fra]

The above article grossly generalises the picture. In reality, most people who buy diesels are better off and it doesn't take 8 years to see the benefit.

I swapped my cooper S to a 120d at the beginning of the year (direct swap so no money paid to buy it). My fuel economy in town in now almost twice as good (400 mile range for the 120d vs just over 230 mile range for the cooper S). On motorways the 120d does 600 miles + (55mpg) on a tank while the cooper S would struggle to get 300 miles (25-30mpg). Power is identical and the 120d has bags more torque, is smooth, revs well for a diesel and actually feels a lot quicker than the mini in virtually all situations...it is a superb diesel engine. My costs have actually halved in terms of the daily run-around while keeping the same performance.