Diesel vs Petrol

jase1

See this is what I am talking about. Even diesel supporters are stating that modern diesels, when they go wrong do so in some style.

It was only a few years ago that people were saying "don't buy that overcomplex Mitsubishi/Subaru; it might be reliable but when it goes bang it'll take all your money and set fire to it" and "buy the nice simple Ford instead". And yet here we are with the recommended "economy car" with a level of complexity and capacity to ruin its owner that would make an Evo owner wince.

If the auto is causing this level of problems then the manual will as well if driven a certain way. What you are describing bigjl is a fundamentally bad design, full of workarounds, imbalanced engineering and overengineered components.

Modern diesels are like Russian Roulette; most of the players will leave the room alive, but one is going to end up with blood coming out of his nose.

Personally, I'll take the steady extra fuel expense thanks.

Mark_Jefferson

Diesel cars give better mileage and save you a ton of money on fuel costs compared to petrol. I have always bought a diesel.

bigjl

jase1 wrote: »

See this is what I am talking about. Even diesel supporters are stating that modern diesels, when they go wrong do so in some style.

It was only a few years ago that people were saying "don't buy that overcomplex Mitsubishi/Subaru; it might be reliable but when it goes bang it'll take all your money and set fire to it" and "buy the nice simple Ford instead". And yet here we are with the recommended "economy car" with a level of complexity and capacity to ruin its owner that would make an Evo owner wince.

If the auto is causing this level of problems then the manual will as well if driven a certain way. What you are describing bigjl is a fundamentally bad design, full of workarounds, imbalanced engineering and overengineered components.

Modern diesels are like Russian Roulette; most of the players will leave the room alive, but one is going to end up with blood coming out of his nose.

Personally, I'll take the steady extra fuel expense thanks.

Indeed the Zafira mk2 was completely ruined by the choice to fit a diesel lump with a dpf, it was also troublesome on the manuals so not just an automatic vehicle issue.

We had other issues with the Zafira not being fit for purpose but the pereol engined ones do appear to be less troublesome.

Though i would be tempted by a diesel without the dpf, you can get them removed and the ecu remapped.

But low miles and the need for a diesel is reduced, but an autobox and diesel engine can prove expensive on fuel. If the gearbox is a bad match, i had an Omega with the BMW engine and autobox and it drunk fuel, mate had a 5 series with the 5 speed autobox as fitted to that car and it was 10mpg better being put to identical use. Petrols do seem less affected by autoboxes, the new fangled DSG boxes are vey good.

motorguy

TVR2 wrote: »

Performance?! My first car was a Rover 214 and that did 0-60 in 10.9 seconds. You'd be beaten off the lights by a 15 year old Rover...

A fair comparison would be between the 2.0 turbocharged Rover 600, a car which hit 60 mph in 7 seconds (a figure few 2.0 turbodiesels could manage today).

Badges such as Bluemotion and other manufacturers' equivalents are simply 21st century Clubman, Pop Plus etc...

Thats not what i said - I said 'a better combination of price, performance and economy'

Clubman and Pop Plus were trim levels. Bluemotion is a variant designed around economy.

And with respect its a lot easier to make a £200K supercar that does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds than it is to build a car to a specific price point.

So i'm not really sure of your point?

motorguy

jase1 wrote: »

See this is what I am talking about. Even diesel supporters are stating that modern diesels, when they go wrong do so in some style.

It was only a few years ago that people were saying "don't buy that overcomplex Mitsubishi/Subaru; it might be reliable but when it goes bang it'll take all your money and set fire to it" and "buy the nice simple Ford instead". And yet here we are with the recommended "economy car" with a level of complexity and capacity to ruin its owner that would make an Evo owner wince.

If the auto is causing this level of problems then the manual will as well if driven a certain way. What you are describing bigjl is a fundamentally bad design, full of workarounds, imbalanced engineering and overengineered components.

Modern diesels are like Russian Roulette; most of the players will leave the room alive, but one is going to end up with blood coming out of his nose.

Personally, I'll take the steady extra fuel expense thanks.

Hmmm..

Not sure i agree with this. In my time in the motor trade i've probably had more petrol cars with major / catastrophic failures than diesels.

This year I've had one Golf diesel with a blown turbo, but i've had a petrol Clio with head gasket failure, a Saab 9-5 2.0 petrol Turbo with a knackered turbo in the same timeframe and a petrol Vectra with an ECU failure that knackered the engine.

Parag

I bought a new BMW 530d SE in August 2004.

In early 2008 the ECU failed and needed replacing.

Last month the Coolant Thermostat valve failed, followed about ten days later by turbo failure, inlet manifold problem and propellor shaft needing replacement.

The problems were apparently caused by contamination in the turbo, oil etc, which now I feel may be down to my mainly local driving. The car's mileage is only 47,000,and I only occasionally get on the motorway. When I do, I 'bomb' it!!

Luckily I have an extended warranty with Warranty Direct and they are covering most of the cost, and with a £4000 bill for repairs, I wonder whether I should go for a diesel now. I was considering the VW Passat CC 2.0 TDI (170) Blue Motion DSG, but reading all the diesel problems with low mileage etc is a concern.

macman

If your annual mileage is only about 7K, a diesel probably doesn't make too much sense on economic grounds. Assuming it costs around £1K more to purchase, you'll not make the money back unless you keep it for many years. However to counter that, the resale value of a diesel may well be higher a few years down the line, so that may offset the higher capital outlay.
Personally I drive a diesel because I prefer the driving style, but I don't do the mileage to justify it purely on the grounds of economy.

bigjl

My dad reckons diesels are for farmers and tractors.

He has never owned one though did like the way my Omega with the BMW lump and autobox drove when he used it once.

But he currently drives a 207 Pug, 1.4 petrol engine and gets over 50mpg on average.

Yes he may have got 60mpg or 65mpg if he had gone for the HDi but he bought it new through scrappage and the HDi was the thick end of £2000 more at the time.

That is a lot of money to get back with only a 10/15mpg advantage and dearer pump prices.

Every person is different in their driving style and mileage.

For example my dad go over 45mpg on average out of his MK2 Mondeo 1.8 Verona, when it got scrapped under scrappage it had done around 50k I think, but was an R reg, what a waste, not even run in.

These days running a downsized petrol engine may make more sense than a diesel, look at the little 1.2 engines they are fitting to Octavias or the tiny twinair engine in the Fiat 500.

I have read that the idea of downsizing engine size is going to be more and more common over the next few years.

Look at the Merc Sprinter 516cdi, nearly 160bhp from a 2.2, which is less than 10 more than you got from the old 5 cylinder 2.7, the first effort the 515cdi was too slow at only 150bhp, but the 516 is much improved, I think the 516 has twin turbos but don't quote me on that.

jase1

I do wonder about these claims of 55, 60, 70mpg.

Seems to me that those who mention it always put the equivalent petrol at about 35mpg. But in order to get 60mpg out of a diesel, especially something as big as a Passat, it needs to be driven in a certain way -- i.e. gently, on the motorway. My petrol manages just shy of 50mpg in these conditions. A friend of mine, not a boy-racer by any means, gets 45mpg overall from his 2.2 diesel Mondeo.

The difference is certainly not as great as nearly 100% more economy from a diesel than a petrol under the exact same conditions.

In my experience of driving a similar-sized car in similar conditions (Mondeo class car in mixed driving) I achieved 42mpg from the petrol-engined car and 54mpg from the diesel. Allowing for the 8% difference in the price of fuel, that's a 19% saving. Useful, but not mind-blowing.

AdrianHi

If you like the relaxed driving style and low down torque of a diesel but don't have a driving pattern that's right for a diesel manay manufacturers have a low pressure turbo petrol in the range these days.
Peugeot/Citroen and Ford do a circa 160bhp turbo petrol with official combined fuel consumption around 40mpg in Mondeo / Focus / S-Max for example which is diesel like in power delivery.