Petrol car cheaper than diesel car??

Lum

Really old diesels (i.e. from the 90s) are indeed super reliable, but as Strider says, modern diesels with their particulate filters and DMFs do have a tendency to fail in an expensive manner if they are used for pootling around town, the school run and similar short trips.

Since the OP is looking at Yaris/Clio sized cars and a 1.4 engine, we can probably assume that it's going to see short trips for the most part, and since they have £1500 to spend, they'll be looking at early 00s cars that have probably already seen a lifetime of short trips and either be knackered already, or about to fail.

I'd go for a petrol. I'd only really buy a modern diesel if it was something Mondeo-sized and covered in stonechips on the front bumper from a lifetime of motorway use, and I intended to put it to similar use.

It's also worth noting that this saleman is a relative of the OP and presumably just offering advice rather than trying to shift a car.

herrys

yes the petrol cars are cheaper than the diesel cars... as petrol costs cheap than the diesel...

asajones.24

hi,

thanks for all your posts guys.

my cousin was trying to sell me a 1.4 petrol as well as give me advice.

i'm looking at cars about 10 years old. e.g. a fabia. and it'll be mostly for short-ish trips.

so in summary, maybe a 1.4 petrol isn't that bad. it seems there isn't much to it. i'm still tempted by diesels.

any advice on pros and cons of car auctions?
i live in plymouth, and there are cars for sale up north but obviously it's far to travel, (not a lot of choice down here so far in my searches) and if anything goes wrong...!

thanks,

asa.:)

Hammyman

Strider590 wrote: »

Rule #2 in life: never eat the yellow snow


Only thing to say is that maintenance wise and repairs wise, a diesel gets to that expensive point in it's life much quicker than a petrol.

New or nearly new diesel = unbeatable.
Anything more than 4,5,6 years old and your headed toward some hefty bills.

Based on what? Mine is now on 159k and 7 years old...when is it going to get expensive? Engine wise, the only thing related to the diesel model is a £40 turbo to intercooler pipe split. I once bought a Passat that was over 10 years old and knocking on the door of 200,000 miles. Didn't cost anything above normal running costs..

almillar

asajones.24 - evens? - dunno how you work that out, but since you haven't told us your mileage or journey habits, we can't really help more. I'd suggest that if you want to put your fuel cost down, buy a 1 -1.2 litre car instead of 1.4, unless you have a good reason to get a 1.4 that you haven't shared with us?
Auctions - Buyer beware - if you know how to service a car, have a look round and judge mechanical condition, give it a go, otherwise, leave it.

mikey72

asajones.24 wrote: »

..........my cousin was trying to sell me a 1.4 petrol as well as give me advice..........:)

I hope the car is beter than the advice.


We've got a 1997 peugeot 106 diesel.

It done 70k in just under 4 year, up to 160k now.

Cost nothing apart from service items, and does a mixture of short and long runs.

Hammyman

Strider590 wrote: »

Particle filters (DPF's) and dual mass flywheels (DMF's) and possibly EGR's were really the death of reliable diesel power.

Mine is on 159k...when are the above going to die?

Hammyman

almillar wrote: »

It's difficult to put an actual annual mileage on the exact point it becomes worth it, and others have mentioned some other factors, but you'll get told anything between 12,000 and 20,000. It also depends on the LENGTH of your individual journeys - short journeys are worse in a diesel than a petrol, as they take longer to become efficient from cold.
I agree with Hammyman's setiment, as in actually working stuff out, but he made a minor error and got litres mixed up with gallons. I'd love to pay £1.33 for a GALLON of petrol...
Fixed calculations...
"Say the difference is £500 to buy. Petrol is £1.33 a LITRE, diesel £1.38. Petrol car does 50MPG, the diesel equivalent 75MPG.

I did do a litres to gallon conversion when working out the cost. No idea why I wrote the price down as being per gallon...:rotfl::rotfl:

Lum

mikey72 wrote: »

I hope the car is beter than the advice.


We've got a 1997 peugeot 106 diesel.

It done 70k in just under 4 year, up to 160k now.

Cost nothing apart from service items, and does a mixture of short and long runs.

The OP is looking at early 00s cars though, not a 1997 Pug which is an old-school diesel engine i.e. actually reliable!

Also 70K in 4 years implies that you're taking it on long trips on a reasonably frequent basis, which is where diesel cars have the most to offer. The OP is using it for shorter trips.

Hammyman

almillar wrote: »

I'd suggest that if you want to put your fuel cost down, buy a 1 -1.2 litre car instead of 1.4,

Bad advice. A smaller engine isn't always more economical. With every car there is a sweet spot. Engine basically follow:

1) Engine with a lot of power. Goes like stink but low economy.
2) Engine matched to the weight of the vehicle. Goes at an acceptable rate and has good economy.
3) Engine underpowered for the weight of the vehicle. Acceleration is glacial and you have to wring the neck out of the engine to get it to move or increase speed which gives lower economy than 2) but is cheaper insurance due to the fact it can't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

In the case of the Ford Mondeo, the V6 walloped fuel. The 2L was a lot better. The 1.8L was the sweet spot and the 1.6L used more fuel than the 1.8L. With my beloved Ford Capris, the 2L got 10% better fuel economy than the 1.6L.