Petrol VS Diesel i'm confused!

goldspanners

older diesel engine fuel injectors and pumps could be got relatively cheap compared to new high pressure pumps and injectors,you could buy a full set of old injectors for the price of just 1 new cdi type.
i have a 110 cdi vito for work,2 of the injectors are easy to replace,the other 2 are a complete nightmare,the engine has to come out to do this,between parts and labour costs the van will be scrap when these parts fail. it is a common ocurance on these vehicles.
as the scouser said above when modern diesels go wrong they usually do it in style,costing you a fortune.but when they dont they are great.

pault123

The model i've been offered is the 110 bhp common rail I think its reffered to, there looks to be an improved Pump Duse version 115bhp brought out in 2001 which uses far higher pressure - I suppose the PD could be a bad thing in repair terms then.

goldspanners

pault123 wrote: »

The model i've been offered is the 110 bhp common rail I think its reffered to, there looks to be an improved Pump Duse version 115bhp brought out in 2001 which uses far higher pressure - I suppose the PD could be a bad thing in repair terms then.

it could be,but i very much doubt all 4 injectors will go down at the same time,with the right equiptment it is easy to diagnose which injector it is that is failing.
it seems a few manufacturers are going back to using the common rail system.

chuckles1066

pault123 wrote: »

(althought Conors " I'm getting an average of 57MPG from a 2L Mondeo TDCi." has spurred me to research some real figures being achieved by 1.9 Tdi VW drivers of the same car/model)

My Focus CC has the same 2.0TD engine as Conor's, mine's married to a six-speed gearbox, I don't know about his. I only use Shell V-Power diesel together with a dash of Millers fuel additive.

I get 47mpg but I do a lot of motorway driving at 90mph+..........if he's getting 57mpg, then he must be driving like a vicar's wife.

cyclonebri1

Quote;
I get 47mpg but I do a lot of motorway driving at 90mph+..........if he's getting 57mpg, then he must be driving like a vicar's wife.

No you don't,;) you drive at 70mph. Which is why Coner gets 57mpg;);)

Most diesel will give figures like this at a constant 65-70mpg

harveybobbles

While were on the subject of mpg etc, could I just point out that it REAAAAAAAAALLLLLY annoys me when I get customers in looking at cars with 3.0 litre or higher petrol engines and then ask what the fuel consumption will be while out on test drive.
I feel like saying "Why buy a 3.0 if you're bothered if you get 28mpg or 31..."

Or when they drive like a tvvat on a test drive and ask what the mpg is.

"not much if you continue to drive like a !!!!!..."

MORPH3US

OP, if fuel consumption is what bothers you most in a car, do you really need a Passat sized car?

If you could stump for a smaller car then you could a) get the car cheaper (or get a newer / better model), b) get even better mpg, c) possibly get into £35 tax bracket etc...

Just a thought.

loofer

pault123 wrote: »

The model i've been offered is the 110 bhp common rail I think its reffered to, there looks to be an improved Pump Duse version 115bhp brought out in 2001 which uses far higher pressure - I suppose the PD could be a bad thing in repair terms then.

The unit injector's on the PD are no more likely to fail than on the common rail VE (110hp) engines. The cost to replace unit injectors, however, will be more.

The plus point with the 115 PD is more power (i'm not talking boy racer mode) which is helpful for in gear acceleration on motorways. The engine also comes mated with 6 speed gearbox so all in all it is very economical. I tend to get 60+mpg out of mine. Thats a 35 mile motorway trip.

The not-so-plus point is that the PD engines require 'special' Oil. It can't be just any full synthetic oil. We're talking £40+ for just a 4-5 litre bottle in some cases. Can get non branded for about £25. Using incorrect oil can damage engine internals. Has to meet VW spec.

Don't forget though... if you buy a PD then it's likely it will be registered 2001 or after. Road tax will be cheaper.
I have just paid £120 for 12 months on my PD 115.
Pre-2001 cars are based on engine size so you're looking at about £165+ for 12 months

thescouselander

harveybobbles wrote: »

While were on the subject of mpg etc, could I just point out that it REAAAAAAAAALLLLLY annoys me when I get customers in looking at cars with 3.0 litre or higher petrol engines and then ask what the fuel consumption will be while out on test drive.
I feel like saying "Why buy a 3.0 if you're bothered if you get 28mpg or 31..."

Or when they drive like a tvvat on a test drive and ask what the mpg is.

"not much if you continue to drive like a !!!!!..."

I don't think this is an unreasonable question. Not all cars are equal so if the customer wants to compare two different but similar cars they may be interested in the difference in fuel consumption even though in both cases the fuel consumption will be relatively high.

pault123

Some fantastic advice here :beer:

loofer wrote: »

I tend to get 60+mpg out of mine. Thats a 35 mile motorway trip.

Another confirmation of good mpg from this engine. It sounds like swings and roundabouts as to 110 vs 115 PD - saving of £60ish a year on roadtax but higher oil cost.

MORPH3US wrote: »

OP, if fuel consumption is what bothers you most in a car, do you really need a Passat sized car?

If you could stump for a smaller car then you could a) get the car cheaper (or get a newer / better model), b) get even better mpg, c) possibly get into £35 tax bracket etc...

Just a thought.

Hi Morph3us,

Its for lugging bikes around @ weekends, and lots of big electrical goods in the week. I need a very long load length hence an estate offers more of this than some vans, offers it seems a real achievable 50-60 mpg - only downfall is the roadtax