|
Fuel used at 57mpg will be ~125 gallons - ~£750 pa. Going down to (say) 40mpg in a petrol will consume another ~50 gallons pa - ~ £300pa.
Your 4 year old car has lost £5-6k in value over 4 years - ~£1400 pa.
To replace it will cost an extra ~£8500. Over 4 years that is £2100 pa. Buy a diesel and it will be getting close to unsaleable in 4 years time.
If money is a major decision driver - keep what you currently have. You could spend £500 on a new set of tyres and a full valet and it will be much like a new car I suspect.
|
|
|
|
There was an 'advertising feature' in Car Magazine a couple of months back, where a Peugeot 208 was compared in petrol, diesel and electric forms. The test took the form of doing LE JOG with the three different 'fuelled' 208's. They really liked the diesel version!, with it being no heavier than the petrol (auto) 208 it was agile, and with it being the only one of the three with a manual box, it was also the most 'interactive'. Part of the leg they did in the diesel took in the peak district, where its 184lb/ft of torque (from 1750 rpm) made very light work of the hills. And later, on the M6, that torque along with a long 6th gear, meant very easy and relaxed cruising.
So while I would absolutely agree that unless you do big miles, diesel isn't going to be a good idea. But if you do big miles, might be worth a look at a diesel 208, or indeed its platform and engine sharing Stellantis cousins, the new Vauxhall Corsa and the Citroen C3.
Edited by badbusdriver on 10/04/2021 at 10:58
|
Fuel used at 57mpg will be ~125 gallons - ~£750 pa. Going down to (say) 40mpg in a petrol will consume another ~50 gallons pa - ~ £300pa.
Maths a bit out there and that will not apply if you use a modern small turbo petrol as a comparison.
Wife has a Skoda Fabia 1.0 TSi 110 PS. The car is the same size as a Clio and over 3 years has averaged 50 mpg. So over 4 years and 28,000 miles @ £1.229 a litre you would spend just over £3100 on petrol. Same 28,000 miles in your Clio at 57mpg and £1.289 a litre would cost just under £2900.
The difference is about £250 over 4 years, £62 a year.
Part of the leg they did in the diesel took in the peak district, where its 184lb/ft of torque (from 1750 rpm) made very light work of the hills.
We regularly (or did before Covid) take the Fabia to the peak and onto the North York Moors. and compared to previous diesels the 148 torques in the Fabia do not in any way feel lacking. They are available over a much wider band than in a diesel where they tend to appear in a lump between 2000 and 3000 rpm, the Fabia is still pull at over 5000. But I cannot understand what 208 they used, all the turbo petrols have more torques that the Fabia and unless they used the poverty spec non-turbo there is no way it could be as you seem to suggest.
|
We regularly (or did before Covid) take the Fabia to the peak and onto the North York Moors. and compared to previous diesels the 148 torques in the Fabia do not in any way feel lacking. They are available over a much wider band than in a diesel where they tend to appear in a lump between 2000 and 3000 rpm, the Fabia is still pull at over 5000. But I cannot understand what 208 they used, all the turbo petrols have more torques that the Fabia and unless they used the poverty spec non-turbo there is no way it could be as you seem to suggest.
The test, as said, was three different fuelled 208's being used for different parts of the journey, they were not being compared over the same stretches of road*. So no way of knowing how the petrol turbo (127bhp) auto would have compared to the turbo diesel (99bhp) over the same hilly area.
The power, torque and weight of the three cars were as follows,
e-208. 134bhp, 192lb/ft, 1455kg
208 1.5 HDi. 99bhp @ 3500rpm, 184lb/ft @ 1750rpm, 1090kg
208 1.2 (petrol) turbo auto. 127bhp @ 5500rpm, 170lb/ft @ 1750rpm, 1158kg
*Though not compared on the road together, all three were gathered at Knockhill to compare lap times. The electric version was quickest at 1 min 17 seconds, petrol auto next at 1 min 18 seconds, and the diesel was last at 1 min 21 seconds. The e 208 wasn't the best in the corners, not too bad but there was no disguising the extra weight. The instant power from the electric motor punched it out of the corners quicker than either of the others though. The surprise for me was the diesel, considering how much less power it had than the other two, only 3 seconds off the pace of the petrol seemed pretty good. It was summed up, "A lot of fun and almost as fast as the others; not your typical diesel".
|
Buy the new Dacia Sandero
Effectively 80% a modern Clio/Micra but considerably cheaper
|
|
I'd go with Xileno and keep what you've got. Depreciation will diminish as the years roll by, and the advice that your diesel is 'unsuitable' for your mileage is overblown.
|
|
Over the last 10 years, I kept my megane for 6 years before changing to a VW polo that i diod not like and then buying the Clio, the Megane i owned for 6 years and the polo i owned for 18 months, Luckily i bought it cheap and they gave me a good price selling it back to them in order to free up money to buy the Clio.
I have to say that the Clio is one of the best cars that i have owned, Not only for the comfort and looks, But also running costs.
My wife mainly uses the car for short trips of 6 miles to work and 6 miles back and we are still getting 57mpg over the year, The MPG does drop to 55 during the winter, But getting 60MPG during the summer and we do put Redex Particulate filter cleaner in once a year if we do a long journey.
Regards Depreciation, Will cars registered before April 2017 road tax changes hold their price? compared to cars with higher road tax?
Renault have shortened the clio and now uses the smaller engines that i would guess you will be lucky to get 44mpg even though Renault state 52mpg for the 1.0 SCE 75bhp Play
One of the points that i was making, Renault have not given me a reason why to change cars, So i am happy to put a new set of tyres on the car and like one person said, Treat the car to a full valet and keep the car, In 4 years time, Electric cars might be the way to go.
Thank you for your reply's
Malc
|
|
I think that's the best conclusion.
If you want a new car anyway then maybe the fact the old one needs a few hundred quid spending on it is as good a trigger as any. In terms of rational, ie stand back and look, economics it's going to be lot more costly to change, even if you could get a respectable discount on a pre-reg.
I'd be a bit chary of the possibility of DPF troubles given the miles you're doing but if they've been kept at bay so far then maybe the car is coping OK.
Manufacturers are increasingly limiting diesels to medium and large cars. I had to replace my diesel Roomster 18 months ago (written off). The Roomster had by then been out of production for 5 years and couldn't source a late build diesel in the time available - car needed for work. The next alternative was a Fabia; plenty of petrols hatch or estate in a range of trims but no diesels.
Setlled for a 1.2 petrol which is nice enough but hasn't the Roomie's mileage and only a small fuel tank.
Unless I was in performance or really large load lugger territory I wouldn't be too worried about the Excise Duty which is a small part of overall running costs.. I don't think the current government has the balls to heavily penalise older diesels - they won't even unfreeze fuel duty.
|
The power, torque and weight of the three cars were as follows,
e-208. 134bhp, 192lb/ft, 1455kg
208 1.5 HDi. 99bhp @ 3500rpm, 184lb/ft @ 1750rpm, 1090kg
208 1.2 (petrol) turbo auto. 127bhp @ 5500rpm, 170lb/ft @ 1750rpm, 1158kg
Looking at those figures and digging a bit deeper its clear to me that in the real world the turbo petrol has a real advantage.
Forgetting the extra BHP for starters whilst the diesel has a small torque advantage at 1750 rpm at 3500 rpm this has dropped to 148 torques, a bit of web research shows that the petrol still has 160 torques at 3500 rpm. But after 3500 rpm the diesel will be dropping quite steeply whereas the the petrol still has 121 torques at 5500 rpm. All this translates into the very easy driving characteristics of a modern turbo petrol, no sudden lump of torque with a eqally sudden drop like a diesel, its there all the way for low revs to getting really going by 1750 rpm and continuing all the way to max power and beyond.
As much as I loved diesels with todays technology there is no comparison.
When I was racing one thing we did to compare power curves was not just to look at them but to plot them in CAD and measure the area under the torque curve. An engine with big bhp would look impressive but on the torque curve the rise and fall would be steep. An engine with a softer cam would produce less power but the torque curve whilst rising more gently would fall more gently and with an earlier peak power would almost certainly match or even beat the torque figure of the more powerful motor. The area under the curve for the engine with the softer cam would often be greater than that of a higher tuned unit and would be much easier to drive as a result. On twisty circuits like Cadwell Park with only one long strait the easier to drive engine would almost certainly produce an equal or faster lap time but at Snetterton with its 3 long straits power would be the fastest option.
Although I have never measured the area under the torque curve of the Peugeot engines discussed above I would be surprised if the diesel gave a better result than the petrol up to 4000 rpm, will have to do it one rainy afternoon.
|
|
|
|
|
