A 1.6 engine against a 1.4 turbo one

dontlikemondays

red_eye wrote: »

Renault diesels= spend 10hr continually dipping the dipstick to check the oil level after topping up:mad:

Can you elaborate?
Are diesels no good then?

keith1950

Hi , the Renault diesels are usually pretty good .( although I don't consider them to be as good as the diesels previously made by Nissan.)

The main problems with all new diesels...whatever make ,is that if you just do stop start motoring around town and don't do regular longer distance runs you can run into DPF problems ! xx

dontlikemondays

Just a quick update.
I did in fact go for the Trax 1.7 diesel.
It's been absolutely brilliant.

Yes, there might be problems ahead, but since I had it nothing but good to say about.
Only 40MPG and not 55 like they say, but lot's of poke when I need it.

Let you know how it goes in future

Trebor16

What did you pay for it in the end? Did you go new?

Quiet_Spark

dontlikemondays wrote: »

Only 40MPG and not 55 like they say,

The figure of 55mpg is probably obtained from a combination of urban and motorway driving (although you can guarantee the car was tested in a laboratory under "perfect" conditions which you will never achieve in real life).

Joe_Horner

Quiet_Spark wrote: »

The figure of 55mpg is probably obtained from a combination of urban and motorway driving (although you can guarantee the car was tested in a laboratory under "perfect" conditions which you will never achieve in real life).

The figure of 55mpg is also intensely annoying as it makes it £105 per year VED because of its "low CO2 emissions", whereas my '96 Pug 405 DT gives a genuine 45mpg overall (compared to the OP's genuine 40mpg), so in real life emits about 12% less CO2 than the fake new car figures, but costs over £200 per year.

Ahh well.......

Trebor16

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The figure of 55mpg is also intensely annoying as it makes it £105 per year VED because of its "low CO2 emissions", whereas my '96 Pug 405 DT gives a genuine 45mpg overall (compared to the OP's genuine 40mpg), so in real life emits about 12% less CO2 than the fake new car figures, but costs over £200 per year.

Ahh well.......

The OP hasn't mentioned how he is obtaining the figure of 40mpg. His mpg and yours are meaningless as his driving style and conditions he drives in could be totally different to yours. You only have to go on to sites like Sprit Monitor DE or Fuelly to see the wide variation in actual MPG obtained by different drivers in the same models.


It would be interesting to see what a 405 would achieve if put through the modern testing regime. Only then we would have a meaningful comparison.


One final point, the emissions of your Pug will be far more toxic than a modern diesel, which reflects why the road tax on yours is far greater than a modern car.

Joe_Horner

Trebor16 wrote: »

The OP hasn't mentioned how he is obtaining the figure of 40mpg. His mpg and yours are meaningless as his driving style and conditions he drives in could be totally different to yours. You only have to go on to sites like Sprit Monitor DE or Fuelly to see the wide variation in actual MPG obtained by different drivers in the same models.


It would be interesting to see what a 405 would achieve if put through the modern testing regime. Only then we would have a meaningful comparison.

All valid points, which serve to show the lunacy - and inherent unfairness of basing VED on imaginary "CO2 emission" figures that have nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of CO2 the car will actually produce, which is dependent as much on the driver as the car.

One final point, the emissions of your Pug will be far more toxic than a modern diesel, which reflects why the road tax on yours is far greater than a modern car.

Not a valid point, because VED is based only on the imaginary emissions of CO2 - other pollutants aren't a factor in the banding. My CO2 is no more or less toxic than anyone elses - ie: it's not toxic at all and plants love the stuff!

Trebor16

Joe_Horner wrote: »

All valid points, which serve to show the lunacy - and inherent unfairness of basing VED on imaginary "CO2 emission" figures that have nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of CO2 the car will actually produce, which is dependent as much on the driver as the car.

I wouldn't describe it as lunacy but you need a system that allows vehicles to be tested as consistently as possible. Driving styles and how the vehicle is used are effectively irrelevant as there are so many variables there.

Joe_Horner wrote:

Not a valid point, because VED is based only on the imaginary emissions of CO2 - other pollutants aren't a factor in the banding. My CO2 is no more or less toxic than anyone elses - ie: it's not toxic at all and plants love the stuff!

it is valid in relation to the amount of pollutants being emitted by a car that is almost 20 years old.

Joe_Horner

Trebor16 wrote: »

I wouldn't describe it as lunacy but you need a system that allows vehicles to be tested as consistently as possible. Driving styles and how the vehicle is used are effectively irrelevant as there are so many variables there.

It's lunacy to claim that it's a "green" policy when it involves people buying new cars (because of the incentive of lower tax) in order to continue burning as much, if not more, fuel than an old car can manage.

Driving style is very easy to target - put VED on fuel. You drive with a heavy foot = you pay extra. In fact, it accounts for all the variables invoved in one go because (if it's going to be called a green tax) you pay for exactly the amount of CO2 you, yourself, personally, produce.

No harm to the haulage industry either (the usual criticism of the idea) because it's perfectly straightforward to rebate on their fuel.

it is valid in relation to the amount of pollutants being emitted by a car that is almost 20 years old.

It's completely not valid in terms of VED though - which is the context I thought I was clarly speaking in. The VED bands take no account whatsoever of other pollutants (if we accept for a moment that plant food is a pollutant of course).