The fact people have extra grand or two at point of purchase doesn't neccessarily mean they would be ready or happy to fork out £50 extra a month on fuel. Current market trend clearly shows that neither generic pence per mile figures nor initial difference in price of the car is of much importance to todays buyers...
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Exactly. It may not be rational in the sense that the diesel could (in some cases) cost more overall in total ownership costs, but people do tend to budget their fuel and car purchase payments as seperate, distinct costs. Therefore there is a kind of logic in ignoring other factors and just concentrating on the bottom line MPG.
This is rational in the sense that, as you may often need to make (sometimes unpredictable) long journeys (holidays, family crises, etc), the purchase price is irrelevent. All that matters is whether or not you have enough cash to keep filling it up.
|
|
|
|
They will start to once the older CR diesels start to break & they need £1,000 diesel pumps, £200 lift pumps & £200 injectors! This on a £2,000 car will be very interesting!
Been there & got the T shirt & it isn't nice.
|
|
Exactly - I saw a 1986 Pug205 diesel the other day, still sounded like new. Will a 20 year-old CR diesel sound like that, or will they all be dead by then?
|
|
|
They will start to once the older CR diesels start to break & they need £1,000 diesel pumps, £200 lift pumps & £200 injectors!
During their early days, it was said that catalysts and these new fangled EFI systems would send five year old cars to breakers when components failed. An ECU would set you back a grand, a catalyst not much less, and many of the fuel system components carried £200+ prices. Yet there are loads of 10+ year old injected cars worth a couple f hundred quid tops that are still going strong using secondhand and recon parts. The same will probably happen with common rail diesels.
Cheers
DP
|
Disagree, and Aprilla agrees with me on this, the HP pumps are so complex that you aren't going to get cheap repairs. They are built to an accuracy that makes aircraft bits I used to work on look positively agricultural.
Looking at places like car mechanics mag a lot of these failures tend to follow makes so s/h bits are going to be hard to find.
|
|
When the cambelt went on my Fiesta 1.8 non CR diesel I was informed that if the injector pump was damaged the bill would increase by about £700. This was at least 6 years ago, so diesel injector pumps have always been expensive to fix.
|
|
|
Won't the replacement parts get cheaper to make as the technology becomes outdated? As has happened for the early EFI + cat cars as mentioned above?
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the earlier common rail systems are already cheaper to fix than they were when the technology was new.
If that is the case (no reason why it wouldn't be, that is the normal pattern of things), then the current super high pressure systems that are ruinously expensive, will one day (when the cars are 10+ years old) merely be a bit painful in the pocket, but affordable.
At any rate, in 10 years time I'm sure there will be even more complex and potentially unreliable technology for us to fuss over, and the CR fears will be a distant memory.
|
|
|
Fair point, and I don't disagree that the technology and manufacturing tolerances are very different to my petrol EFI example.
However, I would still expect greater longevity and fewer failures (particularly those inherent to certain makes) as the technology develops. I can't think of a single example of a technology whether in the automotive field or not where this has not been the case.
But yes, I take your point about the cost when they do fail.
Cheers
DP
|
Interesting thread.
If you ever drive long distance, IMHO diesel is nicer.
Not just high mileage, but any long journeys.
If you drive 10k-12k per year, back and to work, buy a petrol.
Change to diesel and you gain:
-use a fuel that lubricates instead of removing oil off when cold
-have superior urban consumption
-can potter in 1st or 2nd at idle pulling the car up hill in a jam
If it's simply about cost, buy a second hand Lada.
Anyway, what about the overtaking 50-70 acceleration figures for diesel?
Torque wins...
|
But I drive close to 20k a year and don't want a diesel. What about if you don't care about torque?!
Personal preference at the end of the day - I can fully understand people wanting a diesel but it isn't for me I'm afraid - regardless of whatever mileage I do.
|
|
|
Anyway, what about the overtaking 50-70 acceleration figures for diesel? Torque wins...
i don't think it does.......... i'd not argue about the strict 50-70 figures, because i don't know.......
but what i do know is the whole overtake in my automatic 3.0 petrol V6 is far quicker (and safer) than the same one on the same road in my wife's manual 2.0 diesel turbo (even though the torque figure is quoted as being better than the petrol V8 model)........ because the diesel runs out of steam and i need a gear change and it always seems to be the point i'd rather it didn't...whereas i bury my divers boot into the carpet on the V6 and let it howl up to the more flexible and reasonable red line...
|
>>but what i do know is the whole overtake in my automatic 3.0 petrol V6 is far quicker<<
And it sounds a million billion times nicer too!
|
|
you're not wrong....... real smile to the face stuff........... and proof that men never really grow up
|
|
|
|
|
EFI + Cat cars ARE generally a lot more expensive to fix than the older motors with a set of points and carb. However this is countered by the much better levels of performance and economy that we get - so its a good trade-off.
I've no doubt that CR Diesels will get better, more reliable and cheaper to fix. But that's in the future and I'm talking about the here-and-now and that is what we're dealing with. If you have a broken down out-of-warranty Renault CR in the driveway that can neither be driven nor sold, nor economically repaired then its not much consolation to be told that things will be better in 10 years' time.
|
|
|
|
I wonder, are we beginning to see environmental conscience play a part? I know that the frequent trips to the petrol pump just didn't 'feel right' and were an intangible part of my decision to go diesel. I suppose I feel a little smug that I've managed to make a big dent in my CO2 output. My circumstance was probably extreme, in that I moved from a 2.5 V6 4WD Auto petrol to 2.2D manual 2wd - comparing those around town I rekon I've not far off halved consumption, which isn't typical I know, but that is my experience. Who knows if this is really important or not, but the 'feel good factor' helps the decision. Just don't let on to Jeremy Clarkson !
|
|
Yes, that's a good point that needs to be considered.
|
i've got a theory....... choose any manufacturer that makes a model that has a decent turbo diesel and a decent V6 petrol.............
which one would you REALLY want to have...... if money and running costs weren't an option...
i thought so.........
so diesel is really second best........ it might be sensible etc and i confess to have done it with SWMBO's car and we use it for long journeys........ but i'd really rather be in the other one
|
Out of interest, what is the "other one"?
|
Jag S Type 3.0 SE auto
Rather have a 2.7 twin turbo S-Type, 205 bhp and 435nm against 240 bhp and 300 nm for the 3.0 petrol, the most refined diesel engine bar none.
|
fair enough......... and having given one a test drive i'm very impressed........ but........ the sound proofing is so good, you can't hear much, which leaves an uninspiring driving experience......... the performance to the 3.0 petrol is very similar, but still can't be 'raked' if you really wanted it.
when i can afford one i'm definitely having one............ i consider it to be that good.........but....
if i had enough money i'd have the V8 supercharged, no question about it....... so that leaves it 2nd best
|
if i had enough money i'd have the V8 supercharged, no question about it....... so that leaves it 2nd best
But by then there will be the 3.6 V8 diesel!, actually westpig I was just making a point, the 3.0 S-Type is a great car.
|
|
i've got a theory....... choose any manufacturer that makes a model that has a decent turbo diesel and a decent V6 petrol............. which one would you REALLY want to have...... if money and running costs weren't an option... i thought so......... so diesel is really second best........ it might be sensible etc and i confess to have done it with SWMBO's car and we use it for long journeys........ but i'd really rather be in the other one
Funnily enough, I do indeed know of such a manufacturer.
Those awfully nice chaps at Chrysler make a splendid automobile called the 300C and in their wisdom they have made a 3.5 lt V6 Petrol version and a 3.0 lt V6 Diesel version. Being the sporting chaps that they are, they have also specced and priced them identically - & guess what the diesel is aoutselling the petrol by (according to my dealer) 10:1.
Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone given the much better performace, massively improved fuel consumption and much, much lower servicing costs .
plus the CRD is just sooooooooooooooooooooo damned gooooooooooooooodddddddd to drive.
Does that answer your question ?
MTC
|
|
|
Westpig, you?re not really comparing like with like in your petrol/diesel comparison. I?m currently driving a 3.2 V6 petrol and it?s a great car to drive, but it?s diesel counterpart is at least the equal of it?s petrol counterpart in overtaking and IME and opinion, it's a more relaxed, flexible and hence enjoyabloe drive on A-roads and motorways. Depending on the engine, they can also sound marvellous when you sink your foot, streets ahead of most 4-cylinder petrol engines. I run a company car with a fuel card so no money or running cost issues, I?ve tried the alternatives and when I stuck in my order for my next car, I didn?t have to think twice about ordering the diesel over it?s petrol counterpart. Oh and as I waste my life standing around petrol stations twice as often, I really miss the astonishing driving range of diesel cars.
TBH I don?t see the point in being dogmatic about the issue as they clearly have different strengths and appeal and if you simply dismiss one of the other you?re cutting off your nose to spite your face. Regardless, the new BMW and VAG petrol engines look like they?re on the way to getting close to the economy, torque and flexibility of a diesel so unless diesel has something else up it?s sleeve these new petrol engines may be the way of the near future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so you're cutting down on CO2 - what about all the other nasties that diesel cars produce in huuuuuuuge quantities compared to petrols? That puff of smoke during a single gearchange probably contains more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a petrol produces in a week. Just a thought....
|
|
One of my neighbours drives a Vectra V6 petrol with a big ´Diesel causes Cancer` sticker on the boot. Not sure why.
|
The whole environmental thing is, in reality, very complex. If people were really worried, they would find ways not to drive. However, the emotional "I'm using less fuel, it must be better for the environment" may be simplistic but I suspect has an impact. Also, there's no way the average man on the steet can be expected to pick between the conflicting arguments, so the only environment things on his/her mind are:
- less fuel = good
- less CO2 = good, as that is what the government is taxing us on, so it must be important
I agree with Cheddar on the S-Type 2.7D - I drove one when they were launched, thought it an incredible car - so refined, I don't think anyone would guess it was a diesel unless you told them.
Interesting example for our debate:
S-Type 2.7D S TARGET PRICE: £27,801, REAL COST: £23,986
S-Type 3.0 S TARGET PRICE: £26,986, REAL COST: £25,881
So, according to What Car, the 2.7D can be got for £815 more than the 3.0 petrol at purchase time. However, when you take depreciation and running costs into account for 36,000 miles over 3 years, the 2.7D is actually £1895 cheaper!
|
|
|
|
Diesel certainly produces more PM10 particulates which feature in current standards and are measured by current equipment. IIRC it has been suggested that the PM produced by petrol, below the current "radar", may be even more harmful.
The bottom lime is that all cars pollute, albeit in different ways. We will only reduce damage to the environment by reducing car usage; if the predicted catastrophe is coming then changing fuels is just like re arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.
|
|
And with China installing coal-fired power stations every year at a rate equivalent to the entire UK power station output, why worry?
|
And with China installing coal-fired power stations every year at a rate equivalent to the entire UK power station output, why worry?
Because we are easily manipulated into believing that our nice convenient form of transport is a gas-guzzling monster that will end the world. Whatever car you have, it won't make a jot of difference to the environment. While pollution exists on a huge scale as in China, I doubt an extra 50g/km of CO2 will melt the polar icecaps any quicker....it will just bankrupt you every year when it comes to taxing the car!
|
|
We have been here before, but even the Economist magazine is changing its stance on the causes of global warming.
|
We have been here before, but even the Economist magazine is changing its stance on the causes of global warming.
In what way?
|
>OK, you get a few more miles to the gallon. But then diesel's more expensive (up to 7p a litre at some places),
Price differential round here is 4p litre
>and common-rail diesels are far more complicated than an average petrol engine,
who cares its on warranty
>Take a Ford Mondeo as an example. 1.8 Graphite petrol does 0-60 in 10.6 secs, and returns 37mpg.
In your dreams. Its a slug in the 60 to 75 overtake zone unless you drop down gears, and to get 37 you have to crawl around in a funeral procession,
>The 2.0TDCi (115ps, same model spec) does 0-60 one tenth of a second faster (hardly worth mentioning),
It is becuase it means it has much more useable grunt
>and returns 47mpg (figures taken from Parkers website).
all day every day no problem
I've sat down and worked out (yes it's sad I know...) that to repay the £984 difference in list price,
Nah nothing like that, who pays list price anyway?
>Add in the higher servicing costs of a diesel,
what higher servicing costs?
>So, why on earth would Mr Average, who drives 10-12k a year, wish to spend his hard-earnt cash on a diesel,
because he wants to, its very smug and satisfying to get 600 miles out of every tank of gas, and it makes us feel good.
Plus it has the added advantage of waking up the neigbours (If I am up early I see no reason why everyone else should be lazing in bed) and I can chuck facefulls of soot in the drivers eyes behind.
Damn I feel good about diesel.,
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Range has become so important to me. I can fill up in SW France and drive 550 miles home without a need to look at the fuel gauge and yet still have enough in the tank for a week's working motoring. It's very satisfying and knowing how the french pull the plug on any activity on Sundays - very useful. Having said all that, I'v e only actually done it a couple of times when I couldn't fill up at the channel port. Why? I can't resist an 80 % fill up at 71p (or so) a litre before I get the ferry.
|
|
Range is important to me as well. When I had my 1990 Passat 1.6TD (45-48mpg) it had an enormous fuel tank (well over 15 gallons) so would easily travel 700 miles+ before even looking for fuel. My Skoda Superb 1.9PD100 (48-53mpg) is not too bad on range as it has a 13.8 gal tank giving a easy real life range of 650miles+ . This is really useful when traveling through Europe(which I do a few times a year) , some motorway service stations are really expensive for fuel and horrendously inefficient when busy.
|
Nobody seems to have latched on to my quotes from the What Car? website.
Going back to the original question and quoting the original cars:
Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX Petrol, Target Price=£13431, Real Price=£15574
Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCi LX Diesel, Target Price=£14266, Real Price=£14754
Real Price = 3 years, 12000 miles/year, total running costs taking into account fuel, tax, insurance, depreciation.
So, despite being cheaper to purchase, the petrol is actually more expensive for mr average by £820....partly due to fuel, but mainly due to the better residual value of the diesel. Perhaps mr average isn't so daft after all!
|
Diesels, environmentally friendly?
If you think that you are stupid. See link.
www.inlinediesel.com/multimedia/
Then again there is no explaining americans!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
