|
"local tele-commuting centres"?
|
|
|
You may well be right but unfortunately the demonisation of all Diesel engined vehicles has been very successful, not only in the uk but globally, with many civic/government authorities banning or planning to ban the driving of diesel vehicles in city centres. Any private purchaser of a diesel now will need to consider keeping it for the long term as depreciation will be higher than for alternatives such as petrol, hybrid and electric etc. However there is still more to be revealed about the unfavourable emission characteristics of the increasingly popular gasoline direct injection engines re particulates etc so in time they will probably be demonised too. Maybe the best solution is a return to mass commuting by bicycle and more working form home or from local tele-commuting centres.
Indeed, times they are a changing.!
But let's start with diesel..lol...no matter how much you try to refine them, you are always basically trying to polish a turd.!
|
|
"...you are always basically trying to polish a turd.!"
That's not how many diesel drivers see it. They love the torque, the lack of gear-changing and the economy. When I drove a Peugeot 306 HDi I absolutely loved it; it was totally reliable, went round corners as if glued to the road and returned 53 mpg no matter what the driving conditions. That was a car without DPF, though it did have a cat.
Then I switched to petrol to avoid the complexity and expensive maintenance that came with the next generation of diesels. I was pleased with the Ford Focus 2-litre, which usually managed around 40 mpg.
My current Mazda CX-5 2-litre I'm even more impressed with, but when I was at the dealers negotiating to buy it, I noticed they had publicity material pushing the case for diesel. (OK, you may feel that Mazda, with their reputation with diesels, need to work especially hard in this respect.)
Now I read that the new CX-5 will be made available in diesel form in the USA. "... it will offer the SKYACTIV-D 2.2 clean diesel engine in the all-new Mazda CX-5 for North America from the second half of 2017. It will be Mazda's first diesel engine model in the North American market." (from Mazda's website)
I don't believe Mazda would make a decision like this lightly. Somebody, somewhere, believes that there is a future for diesel. Only a short-term future, I think.
Edited by FP on 20/07/2017 at 10:34
|
My current Mazda CX-5 2-litre I'm even more impressed with, but when I was at the dealers negotiating to buy it, I noticed they had publicity material pushing the case for diesel.
As people will know I was not a fan of the Mazda petrol when I tried it in the 6 but before we ordered the Superb I still wanted to try the CX5 petrol. Went along to our local dealer who told me that the diesel and petrol engine were identical and drove exactly the same so no need to try the petrol, just order one. I told him I had driven the petrol 6 and was not convinced so would like to try the petrol CX5. He told me they did not sell any, never had, did not have one and I would have to go elsewhere to try one. So I went home, looked on Autotrader for a petrol CX5 within 50 miles and several came up. Nearest was 7 miles away at the dealer I had just left. 2 years old, 15,000 miles. Rang them up and it was available to drive.
But I thought back to how poor I found the 145 PS in the 6 (compared to the 1.4 TSi 140 PS in the Leon) and decided that the 165 PS in the CX5 (with the same torque in a heavier car) would be little (if any) better so no point wasting my time.
One week later drove the Superb 1.4 TSi at the garage across the road and orderd one.
|
|
The original poster makes a very good point, and one which I have made on here before.
Not meaning to be rude Skidpan, but the poster is refering to USED prices not new. Diesels remain at a premium new, however, the poster is quite correct that presumably due to "dieselgate" used diesel prices seem to be on a par or dipping lower than petrol equivalents.
I personally intend to take advantage of this imminently. I think there has been a lot of scaremongering about diesel. Providing you cover sufficient mileage, problems with the "emissions equipment" should not arise until 80-90k miles at which point I woudl be disposing of the car anyway.
I am seriously considering a used Leon. At 1-2 years old, similar mileage there is no difference in price between the 1.4 TSi and 2.0 184 TDI. However, real mpg suggests at least a 5mpg advantage in the diesel, possibly more. The fuel costs are roughly the same and have been for some time. For my money and 16k miles a year I will take the diesel and take my chances!
|
The original poster makes a very good point, and one which I have made on here before.
Not meaning to be rude Skidpan, but the poster is refering to USED prices not new. Diesels remain at a premium new, however, the poster is quite correct that presumably due to "dieselgate" used diesel prices seem to be on a par or dipping lower than petrol equivalents.
I personally intend to take advantage of this imminently. I think there has been a lot of scaremongering about diesel. Providing you cover sufficient mileage, problems with the "emissions equipment" should not arise until 80-90k miles at which point I woudl be disposing of the car anyway.
I am seriously considering a used Leon. At 1-2 years old, similar mileage there is no difference in price between the 1.4 TSi and 2.0 184 TDI. However, real mpg suggests at least a 5mpg advantage in the diesel, possibly more. The fuel costs are roughly the same and have been for some time. For my money and 16k miles a year I will take the diesel and take my chances!
We've just done something similar with my son's "new" car - he and I, independently, determined that a 1-2 year-old Scoda Octavia Estate was what he needed - and although we courted the idea of a 1.4TSi, we opted for a 2.0TDi - both 150PS.
It's Euro 6 so will be the last to be hit by any city centre diesel surcharges.
It should be noted that as buyers, in general, switch back to petrol - that'll push the price of petrol up as refineries can't suddenly make more nor cheaply import more - the same happened in reverse when diesel car sales boomed, the price of diesel was more than petrol. Changing a refinery's split between petrol and diesel involves a redesign, something like a 10-year project cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
I hold the car makers responsible for the current problems, they have brought it on themselves. They failed to use the technology available to them to produce clean cars. Short term gain, arrogance and competitive advantage won out. Cheating was easyer.
Diesel is going nowhere for many years yet, it cant, commerce runs on it and there are no alternatives on the horizon for vans, trucks or trains. Small private cars are already unviable for diesel engines and that may continue up the scale but for bigger heavy vehicles diesel will be hear for a long time yet.
Anyway why should diesel not be around, it will soon be as clean as petrol, even the notorious DPF problems and fuel in the oil problems are quickly going into the history books. I see it myself between the two EURO 5 diesels Ive owned, a 2010 and a late 2014 both monitored with an OBD device. If my car maintained its current DPF use it will be good for well over 300K miles and it virtually cant get fuel in the oil no matter what you do..It regenerates more frequently but at much lower speeds and much quicker, normal non motorway driving is all thats needed. If diesel dies it will be due to cost nothing else.
If we all switch to petrol Europe will break every climate agreement it has made.
Diesel is dead long live diesel
Edited by Stanb Sevento on 20/07/2017 at 12:01
|
I hold the car makers responsible for the current problems, they have brought it on themselves. They failed to use the technology available to them to produce clean cars.
What technology? You mean hybrid?
Anyway why should diesel not be around, it will soon be as clean as petrol, even the notorious DPF problems and fuel in the oil problems are quickly going into the history books.
You think diesels are becoming more reliable?
|
|
Skidpan mentioned earlier about turbo diesels delivering all the power in one big lump. This reminded me of an interesting comparison I had in about 2003 while working in a VW dealership. I had to drive a passat 1.9 tdi (4 cyl, 130bhp) to Aberdeen from Peterhead (32 miles), then take a passat 2.5tdi (V6, 150bhp) back to Peterhead. The 1.9 felt much quicker off the mark and it did seem to deliver all its power aggressively over a short rev range. The 2.5 however, delivered its power more like a particularly muscular n/a petrol, with a much wider power band (along with a lovely cultured snarl!) . It was just getting into its stride when the 1.9 was all done.
|
|
|
Not meaning to be rude Skidpan, but the poster is refering to USED prices not new.
Here we go again. Just because I buy new along comes another poster who seems to be saying my post is irrelevant.
I am seriously considering a used Leon. At 1-2 years old, similar mileage there is no difference in price between the 1.4 TSi and 2.0 184 TDI. However, real mpg suggests at least a 5mpg advantage in the diesel, possibly more. The fuel costs are roughly the same and have been for some time. For my money and 16k miles a year I will take the diesel and take my chances!
Done some checking in our area and that is true in one respect but not in another. The used petrol and diesel cars do appear to be a similar price but the petrols all appear to have a higher spec and the diesels have about double the mileage. I would have thought 5 mpg is pretty close to reality, our 1.4 TSi 140 PS averaged 45 mpg for 4 years and the Honest John "real" figure for the 184 PS diesel is about 50 mpg. But a TSi of the age you are discussing will have the 150 PS ACT engine and I am sure based on my experience with the Superb it would better the 45 mpg I used to get, the Superb is doing that. So I would expect 47 mpg from the 150 PS petrol
Doing 16,000 miles a year I would estimate your saving would be approx £120 a year.
But that would soon be wiped out if you had a single DPF issue (eg a forced regen) and remember that DPF's are not covered under any warranty.
And before you decide drive a TSi 150 PS and TDI 184 PS back to back. Pretty sure you will have a hard choice.
Edited by skidpan on 20/07/2017 at 19:31
|
|
|
|
What technology? You mean hybrid?
No I was referring more to the emissions hardware used. It has been perfectly possible to build euro5 diesels without the need to cheat for a good few years before the present scandal but they chose not to use it.
You think diesels are becoming more reliable?
Im sure some are. The traditional problems like DPF and EGR in VAG cars will diminish a lot, but evey make does its own thing, even yet some are reluctant to fit SCR systems because of the cost. Vag retro fitting software to a million cars will not help at all. Cars at the design stage now Im suse will be great but ecpensive. SCR is the only system that has been found to work on commertial vehicles.
|
Im sure some are. The traditional problems like DPF and EGR in VAG cars will diminish a lot, but evey make does its own thing, even yet some are reluctant to fit SCR systems because of the cost. Vag retro fitting software to a million cars will not help at all. Cars at the design stage now Im suse will be great but ecpensive. SCR is the only system that has been found to work on commertial vehicles.
I suppose that if there was a better infrastructure for urea supply then it would reduce in price. As far as I'm aware it was always pretty expensive when it came to refill time. But if it ensured that the engine had a more reliable form of emissions control then I wouldn't mine shelling out. I heard that some refills were costing £500-1000.
|
Im sure some are. The traditional problems like DPF and EGR in VAG cars will diminish a lot, but evey make does its own thing, even yet some are reluctant to fit SCR systems because of the cost. Vag retro fitting software to a million cars will not help at all. Cars at the design stage now Im suse will be great but ecpensive. SCR is the only system that has been found to work on commertial vehicles.
I suppose that if there was a better infrastructure for urea supply then it would reduce in price. As far as I'm aware it was always pretty expensive when it came to refill time. But if it ensured that the engine had a more reliable form of emissions control then I wouldn't mine shelling out. I heard that some refills were costing £500-1000.
Adblue is 70p/litre at pump price - VW Group dealers will refill for £1.50/litre including labour - my 3.0TDi gets about 600 miles/litre so the Adblue costs between 0.1167p/mile and 0.25p/mile depending on how it's bought.
44-tonne HGVs use a lot of Adblue, as well as a lot of diesel, but I can't imagine any car owner paying £1000 to top-up the Adblue, more like £10.
Edited by RT on 21/07/2017 at 13:02
|
|
|
|
I suppose that if there was a better infrastructure for urea supply then it would reduce in price. As far as I'm aware it was always pretty expensive when it came to refill time. But if it ensured that the engine had a more reliable form of emissions control then I wouldn't mine shelling out. I heard that some refills were costing £500-1000.
I think thats a different liquid. In the early days of DPFs some car makers, mainly French I think used a liquid catalyst that was injected into the filter. It reduced the temperature required to burn off soot down to normal exhauset gas temperatures. The tank that came with the car lasted something like 75K miles but cost £500+ to refill.
|
I think thats a different liquid. In the early days of DPFs some car makers, mainly French I think used a liquid catalyst that was injected into the filter. It reduced the temperature required to burn off soot down to normal exhauset gas temperatures. The tank that came with the car lasted something like 75K miles but cost £500+ to refill.
Yes, I was looking at the pro's and con's of SCR/EGR but the website was dated 2008. The game has moved on since then.
Interesting that someone further up commented that Mazda are pushing diesel in North America. Given their reputation for previous engines and their indifference towards owners in this country, they better make sure that they work because America's attitude towards customers is very different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hold the car makers responsible for the current problems, they have brought it on themselves. They failed to use the technology available to them to produce clean cars. Short term gain, arrogance and competitive advantage won out. Cheating was easyer.
Diesel is going nowhere for many years yet, it cant, commerce runs on it and there are no alternatives on the horizon for vans, trucks or trains. Small private cars are already unviable for diesel engines and that may continue up the scale but for bigger heavy vehicles diesel will be hear for a long time yet.
Anyway why should diesel not be around, it will soon be as clean as petrol, even the notorious DPF problems and fuel in the oil problems are quickly going into the history books. I see it myself between the two EURO 5 diesels Ive owned, a 2010 and a late 2014 both monitored with an OBD device. If my car maintained its current DPF use it will be good for well over 300K miles and it virtually cant get fuel in the oil no matter what you do..It regenerates more frequently but at much lower speeds and much quicker, normal non motorway driving is all thats needed. If diesel dies it will be due to cost nothing else.
If we all switch to petrol Europe will break every climate agreement it has made.
Diesel is dead long live diesel
Whilst there is some traction in the argument that the latest generation car diesel engines are far less polluting than thervious generations and actually meet the EU standards (or least to the same degree that petrol or hybrid cars do), the case for mass ownership of diesel-powered cars is still wrong, as most people just don't do the annual mileage (even if that's via infrequent longer trips that doesn't damaged the engine etc) to justify the extra expense of buying them and, at least for those owners who'll but cars over 5yo, extra maintenance costs over the more (but not all) petrol-engined models, or they do low annual mileages and/or a almost always short trips, which does damage the engines and emissions-related components and can cost a fortune in repairs.
As I've said on several occasions, its a horse-for-courses deal - petrol hybrids should be bought for those doing short trips and/or mainly urban driving, diesels for high annual mileage and/or reasonable mileage and longer trips and lots of lugging heavy loads (2 kids don't count), and petrol-only for in between, with variants of car and engine size and type (e.g. smal engined petrol-turbos) to suit the load and performance requirements and location/reliability.
As the public (hopefully) become more aware of issues and problems associated with each type of car and make and developments in technology, it means they make more informed choices, as, I would hope, politicians would do in the light of scientific research being made available and them not (as some people are, including on this forum) going to extremes of saying 'diesel is dead' and the opposite or how brilliant/rubbish diesel cars are.
|
|
I can't share Andy's optimistic hope that the general public will make better-informed decisions - they'll go along with fashion, hype and media outrage, so no logic at all.
|
I can't share Andy's optimistic hope that the general public will make better-informed decisions - they'll go along with fashion, hype and media outrage, so no logic at all.
I'm trying not to be Mr. glass-half-empty for once! After all, it is Friday! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
