It's official! Petrols are now cheaper to run than diesels!!!!!

motorguy

laidbackgjr wrote: »

Depreciation = Difference between Purchase price and Resale price, so yes considered.

When I was looking at buying my Peugeot 407 for similar spec new the diesel was £2k more than the petrol and for 12 month old cars the diesel was £1k more than the petrol. So in year one the diesel depreciates by £1k more than the petrol, you need to buy a lot of fuel to save the £1k extra depreciation you got with the diesel.

But who buys a new car and just keeps it a year?

By your own admission here, there is *only* £1,000 of a difference in the price of a diesel compared to petrol variant at one year old, yet even 4-5 years down the line the diesel variant will still be worth that extra.

So buy wisely at 1 year old at a premium for the diesel variant and resell at 4-5 years old for the same premium, but benefit from typically 50% better economy during your ownership?

motorguy

worried_jim wrote: »

There was an article in the Times a few weeks ago that said if you buy a new diesel car it would take 9 years driving 12,000 miles a year just to break even over buying the same models petrol equivalent. The example they used was a VW Polo. Very interesting reading.

Funny, using What Car?'s comparisons, you'd save £1440 over 3 years (including depreciation, servicing, insurance, cost) by buying a 75BHP diesel Polo compared to buying the 60BHP petrol variant. This jumps to £2160 saved if you'd bought the 1.4 litre 85BHP petrol variant.

http://www.whatcar.com/Review/EditionCompare?newOrUsed=New&makeId=25321&modelId=26122&editionId=38168&makeId1=25321&modelId1=26122&editionId1=38164&makeId2=25321&modelId2=26122&editionId2=38166#RunningCosts

flyingscotno1

JethroUK wrote: »

Quite - but Google have crunched the numbers and concluded Petrols make journey costs cheaper (not including servicing, tax, other variables)

I'm inclined to accept their research

Crunched the numbers? I'm inclined to not accept the research it if my maths is correct. I just put in a journey I make occasionally 50 miles mainly motorway, some town at either end.

Google is using a fuel price of £1.38 unleaded and £1.45 diesel (slightly different to my local station but let that slide). Even so Google shows a fuel price of £10.10 for a petrol car and £10.61 diesel car.

Dividing the fuel cost we can see that Google has assumed both cars use the same amount of fuel roughly 31mpg. That is just nonsense, and is very much an estimate as diesels usually will do more mpg than petrols.

My car records its mileage and fuel cost and told me last time I did it that it was £5.61 or something like 56mpg.

andygb

alastairq wrote: »

I run a 14 year old £300 1.3 petrol estate, which returns between 45 and 50 mpg...depending on how much of a hurry I happen too be in.

It costs less per year to tax than the equivalent model's diesel version...or indeed, many diesels.

I would really love to know what this car is, because I am a fan of petrol cars, but will be ditching mine soon for diesels.
I do not think that a petrol car from 1998 can achieve 50 MPG.

gregpot2000

Always find it strange when people say higher purchase cost, are they that stupid to not realise this also equates to higher resale value at selling time?

worried_jim

pgilc1 wrote: »

Funny, using What Car?'s comparisons, you'd save £1440 over 3 years (including depreciation, servicing, insurance, cost) by buying a 75BHP diesel Polo compared to buying the 60BHP petrol variant. This jumps to £2160 saved if you'd bought the 1.4 litre 85BHP petrol variant.

http://www.whatcar.com/Review/EditionCompare?newOrUsed=New&makeId=25321&modelId=26122&editionId=38168&makeId1=25321&modelId1=26122&editionId1=38164&makeId2=25321&modelId2=26122&editionId2=38166#RunningCosts

I would love to link the whole article but The Times is now paywall. It did have about four different cars as an example and included the difference in cost as the Polo d would cost more than £1440 over the petrol version thus wiping out any saving.

alastairq

I would really love to know what this car is, because I am a fan of petrol cars, but will be ditching mine soon for diesels.
I do not think that a petrol car from 1998 can achieve 50 MPG.

Skoda Felicia 1.3mpi.

Kept in good order, driven within the Law.....and,with a driving style that takes advantage of the way modern technology has changed how we can conduct a vehicle economically.

Which is a vastly different technique to the way I would have driven a car from an earlier decade.

This particular model, [using the Skoda-designed and originated 136 engine] can take advantage of that engine's inherently light weight for its power output. [something VW,,,or rather VAG, the 'owning' company, could not, and still cannot, equal]...thus the car is light for its size, is nimble in handling, has no [in my view, un-necessary] equipment [toys] like aircon, power steering, etc...all of which add expense and sap power.....

The engine itself was designed to deliver good torque very low down the rev range [to overcome a potential deficiency in piston quality, which would manifest itself at continued high revs]....thus making the car excellent for overtaking manoeuvres [within the Law, of course]....

Having said that, I have no issues with making full and proper use of the engine's effective rev range, should the need arise.


So yes, my consumption is between 45 and 50 mpg's.....nearer the 50 mark if I don't rush or overtake everything in sight...

Even driving it in an abusive manner [heavy loads..it's the estate version].....and the fill-up average consumption remains above the 40-plus mark.

But most of the time the car is one or two-up, and carrying full loads is a rare occurrence......nice to have the space and ability, though, should I need it.

Although the car came to me pretty much by accident, I am impressed by its positive sides...although it doesn't have cup holders [unlike my previous '87 Volvo 740 estate....which in fact had dining-room tables, and an average consumption of a regular 31mpg's...couldn't shift it from that mark, strangely]].....the lower running costs are appreciated. [VED, skinny, high-profile tyres, steel wheels so potholes are not of concern to me]...

I do my own servicing.....and don't wash it often.....it passes MoT's without issues...last time it simply required new number plates...[15 quid, and the tester supplied the sticky pads as well...]....so this year so far, its had a new windscreen.....[cracked]...new plates, and may get a new tyre soon...so plenty of shiny clean bits ......no need for a wash until next autumn...


And my insurance premiums actually went down this year..[I've been on 70% discount for decades].......

In practice, my work colleagues, who have a lot of diesel motorcars, are averaging roughly the same sort of fuel consumptions...give or take a bit...but their engines are often much bigger [and heavier].....as are their cars.

I cannot afford to buy new technology [nor am I sure I'd want to?].....so, whilst no doubt many of you more experienced people who inhabit this forum may well demonstrate how to do things more cheaply, I must admit to being impressed with what I have.

Maybe if I'd been landed with a Ford Fiesta instead, I might have thought differently?

vax2002

Its the cold start that sups diesel, often why you see taxis with engines running, they use less by letting it run than constant cold starts.

redux

JethroUK wrote: »

Planned a route on google maps which now has an option to work out fuel cost for the journey based on average saloon

It default to giving fuel costs for petrol - I switched it to deisel and the costs went up - arrghhhhhhhh

I've always driven silky quiet, lightening fast petrol cars in the past

Now driving my first diesel which is a noisy, under performing clatter bucket that vibrates my fillings out at town speeds and allllllllllll to save a couple quid at the pump

It's official! Petrols are now cheaper to run than diesels!!!!!

Anyone wanna buy a clatter bucket???

switch from Google to Viamichelin

andygb

alastairq wrote: »

Skoda Felicia 1.3mpi.

Kept in good order, driven within the Law.....and,with a driving style that takes advantage of the way modern technology has changed how we can conduct a vehicle economically.

Which is a vastly different technique to the way I would have driven a car from an earlier decade.

This particular model, [using the Skoda-designed and originated 136 engine] can take advantage of that engine's inherently light weight for its power output. [something VW,,,or rather VAG, the 'owning' company, could not, and still cannot, equal]...thus the car is light for its size, is nimble in handling, has no [in my view, un-necessary] equipment [toys] like aircon, power steering, etc...all of which add expense and sap power.....

The engine itself was designed to deliver good torque very low down the rev range [to overcome a potential deficiency in piston quality, which would manifest itself at continued high revs]....thus making the car excellent for overtaking manoeuvres [within the Law, of course]....

Having said that, I have no issues with making full and proper use of the engine's effective rev range, should the need arise.


So yes, my consumption is between 45 and 50 mpg's.....nearer the 50 mark if I don't rush or overtake everything in sight...

Even driving it in an abusive manner [heavy loads..it's the estate version].....and the fill-up average consumption remains above the 40-plus mark.

But most of the time the car is one or two-up, and carrying full loads is a rare occurrence......nice to have the space and ability, though, should I need it.

Although the car came to me pretty much by accident, I am impressed by its positive sides...although it doesn't have cup holders [unlike my previous '87 Volvo 740 estate....which in fact had dining-room tables, and an average consumption of a regular 31mpg's...couldn't shift it from that mark, strangely]].....the lower running costs are appreciated. [VED, skinny, high-profile tyres, steel wheels so potholes are not of concern to me]...

I do my own servicing.....and don't wash it often.....it passes MoT's without issues...last time it simply required new number plates...[15 quid, and the tester supplied the sticky pads as well...]....so this year so far, its had a new windscreen.....[cracked]...new plates, and may get a new tyre soon...so plenty of shiny clean bits ......no need for a wash until next autumn...


And my insurance premiums actually went down this year..[I've been on 70% discount for decades].......

In practice, my work colleagues, who have a lot of diesel motorcars, are averaging roughly the same sort of fuel consumptions...give or take a bit...but their engines are often much bigger [and heavier].....as are their cars.

I cannot afford to buy new technology [nor am I sure I'd want to?].....so, whilst no doubt many of you more experienced people who inhabit this forum may well demonstrate how to do things more cheaply, I must admit to being impressed with what I have.

Maybe if I'd been landed with a Ford Fiesta instead, I might have thought differently?

A link to the Skoda forums - what I would expext, around 40MPG tops.

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/156097-felicia-poor-fuel-consumption/