Go back to petrol: would you?

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Wed 28 Mar 2007 11:40
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
Comments in a couple of other threads have chimed with thoughts of my own lately, so let's get all those views together in one place.

First, my reasons for thinking this way. I've been a diesel user for nearly five years, persuaded to change by the then-new BIK rules as I was choosing what turned out to be my last company car. I still have that car (Volvo S60 D5) and I've been very pleased with the way it combines usable thrust with mid-40s fuel economy, while keeping all the dieselly noises out of the cabin. Only having to refuel it once a month at the moment is a bonus too.

In looking for a replacement, to carry the clobber associated with a growing family, and knowing that I'd be funding it myself, I'm now starting to question my initial assumption that it'll be another diesel. These, in no particular order, are some of my reasons.

* Two cars I otherwise like are utterly ruined by their diesel engines: the Mitsubishi Grandis and the pre-2005 (can't run to a new one) Saab 9-5 estate. The Saab has a variety of powerful, civilized petrol engines; I've not tried a petrol Grandis but would like to.

* The high demand for diesels at the moment, and the usual premium on the new price, generally mean that 1-3 year old diesels cost significantly more than their petrol equivalents.

* The pump price differential between petrol and diesel seems to be here to stay, which offsets the extra consumption of a petrol engine. (Although I'd miss diesel when I go to France - but that's only once a year.)

* It may cost less to service a petrol engine.

* A petrol engine may be less likely to fail expensively in later life.

* At current fuel prices, the difference in fuel cost between a 31 mpg petrol car and a 43 mpg diesel is about 3.1p, or about £1,600 over 50,000 miles. (This, of course, takes no account of different costs for servicing, insurance, VED or depreciation.)

All this suggests to me that, unless a specific diesel car makes a compelling case for itself by being as nice to drive as my Volvo, a petrol equivalent, bought used at the right price, might be a better choice. I'd be interested in what others here think, not about my case in particular but about the broader truth universally acknowledged, that a married man, in possession of a growing family, must be in want of a diesel.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:13
Go back to petrol: would you? - glowplug
I've driven diesels since I passed my test 19 years ago so I'm no recent convert but it does look like this push to make diesels like petrol engines is getting away from their main strenghts.

Still horses for courses I think.

Steve.
---
Xantia HDi Exclusive.
XM 2.1 VSX.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:20
Go back to petrol: would you? - No FM2R
Hate 'em.

Got one, hate it.

Nasty, dirty, noisy, irritating things that fail at being a petrol engine which is the one thing they aspire to be, always changing gear when significantly changing speeds since the usable rev band is about 4revs per hour, why an automatic diesel has kick down I can't imagine, always slippery around the pumps and it gets on my shoes, shameful noisy when driving in concrete areas like multi-story car parks, dodgy engines which have lost sight of the virtues of simplicity and reliability which earlier tractors had, increasingly worsening consumption as they try to be more like pterol engines and mroe.

Don't like 'em.

Cheaper on fuel though. And in a car like a Galaxy, who cares as its got no credibility or excitement anyway. Essential with kids, but otherwise horrible.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:26
Go back to petrol: would you? - KMO
Even though they've become more refined now, so have petrol engines. Still can't stand the tractor noise, and don't trust them not to start spewing smoke after a year or two.

And you don't have much choice if you want an automatic.

I can't see myself moving away from petrol hybrids for now.

Also, I can't help but feel that if the number of diesels keeps going up, that will push the price of diesel up relative to petrol - the proportions of petrol and diesel you get from crude oil is basically fixed, as far as I understand, and if everyone switches to diesel...
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:55
Go back to petrol: would you? - AngryJonny
Never owned a diesel car but have rented diesel vans a few times. Not going to comment on the vehicles, but each time I ended up coverered in diesel when filling up. Whether it's off the floor around the pump, off the handle of the pump itself or whether it just spewed out of the filler cap when the tank was full it ended up all over me. Bad luck, lack of experience or par for the course? I don't care. I'll never buy one.

And what sort of petrol station doesn't provide hand-towels on the forecourt? I can point you to one in Bracknell that doesn't. I bet they make a killing on wet-wipes.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 12:46
Go back to petrol: would you? - Group B
In my mind there are two reasons to choose a diesel over a petrol engined car:
You do higher mileage and expect to get a meaningful saving on fuel costs by driving a diesel, and/or,
you prefer the low rev power delivery of a tdi that is lacking in modern 16v petrol engines (perhaps less of an issue if you are considering bigger cars with bigger engines; not relevant if considering a Saab with a turbo petrol).

You like the way your S60 D5 drives, so that could be reason enough to have another diesel. But what mileage do you do; if you only need to fill the tank once a month it sounds like you are only not doing enough miles to get a worthwhile annual saving on fuel cost?

not about my case in particular
but about the broader truth universally acknowledged, that a married
man, in possession of a growing family, must be in want
of a diesel.


I dont understand this, where did you hear it? Since when has married plus children necessitated a diesel car? Married plus kids plus 30k miles per year; there I can understand the diesel requirement.

* A petrol engine may be less likely to fail expensively
in later life.


I've been thinking about this myself. As my next car will be second-hand and most likely be out of manufacturers warranty, I will probably be looking to avoid a CR diesel car.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:11
Go back to petrol: would you? - paulb {P}
I am very pleased with my Mondeo TDCi 130 (the enormous shove the engine produces at motorway speeds, and the 35 mph/1,000 rpm in 6th gear, suit my driving style and the roads on which I commute perfectly) but I am keeping an open mind on whether it will be replaced by another diesel.

The economy is perfectly acceptable (42-43 mpg if driven hard, 45-46 driven more gently, 48-51 on long runs - all using Shell Diesel Extra and Millers DieselPower Sport), the range is very good, and the servicing costs are certainly no worse than the Civic that preceded it.

However, the possibility (however remote - yes, I know, Cheddar's hasn't missed a beat in >110k miles) of expensive CR injection problems that may or may not be covered by the warranty, depending on what stance the dealer/Ford take, is a concern that I cannot disregard. Apart from anything else, I know that I have looked after the car in the 12k miles and 9 months since I bought it, but I have no way of knowing what happened to it in the not-quite 14k miles before that (except that it was de-fleeted in March 06 and didn't go anywhere much after that until I bought it in June).

I could easily be tempted by a turbocharged petrol - my mate has a 51-reg A6 1.8T and I have always been struck by how much grunt it has for such a big car with a comparatively small engine.

There is of course always the bike, but it doesn't really have the same load capacity...
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:32
Go back to petrol: would you? - IanJohnson
Having had a 1.8T passat for four years it is the most diesel like petrol engine I have driven - loads of low down torque.

But if pushed it dirnks petrol very quickly.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:14
Go back to petrol: would you? - cheddar
I agree with most of the your points WdB based on the kind of mileage you must be doing to only use a tank of diesel a month in the S60, however with regard to "A petrol engine may be less likely to fail expensively in later life", it depends how you look at it, yes my chain cam CR diesel could incurr serious costs however it has required minimal servicing and repairs over 115k miles and replaced a belt driven four cam V6 that needed £600 every 60k miles on belts alone and used twice as much fuel.

Also with regard to others points about noisy diesels, some are noisy and thrummy, others waft you along on a wave or torque and are very refined at speed making a higher revving petrol engine feel strained by comparison.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:17
Go back to petrol: would you? - TheOilBurner
Don't kid yourself that it's just the CR diesels that are unreliable. The older direct injection kind still have expensive problems with fuel pumps and injectors etc. It's just the CR is even more expensive!

I'm not going back to diesel again now. Even with the 20k miles a year I do, the only saving is in fuel. Every diesel car I've bought was way more expensive than the petrol equivalent, and yet seemed to be worth little more when time came to trade it in.

Reliability from personal experience with diesels is so-so, compared to many petrols that have been faultless engine wise.

The only sure saving is at the fuel pumps, and that is being eroded as diesel becomes ever more popular. I've seen up to 6p a litre extra for diesel in these parts.

If you can find a decent petrol engine that does the high 30s mpg, then any savings in fuel (compared to high 40s, low 50s diesel mpg) from diesel are soon erased by expensive after market warranties or mega repair bills.

Just think of the equipment fitted to all modern diesels which rarely, if ever is fitted to petrols:

turbocharger
intercooler
high pressure fuel pump
high pressure fuel rails
dual mass flywheels
particulate filters

Plus, the common technology appears to be more complicated and fragile/critical in the diesels, e.g. swirl valves, EGR valves, etc.

None of that is cheap to fix.

I'm sure the underlying engine in a diesel will last forever, but none of the bolted on stuff will - that's for sure.

There's always going to be a place for diesels, and the latest cars are great to drive, but petrol engines are far from dead just yet!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 21:03
Go back to petrol: would you? - zm
There's always going to be a place for diesels, and the
latest cars are great to drive, but petrol engines are far
from dead just yet!

>>

My sentiments exactly! The amount of scary stories I have heard from contacts in the trade relating to (very) expensive failures of the above mentioned items (on all makes of car, I must add), makes me very wary of any 'modern' diesel that has covered over 150000. I am NOT anti diesel, but do question the logic of buying one beyond this mileage.

Imagine a car buying choice a few years from now: 150k mile BMW 535d (twin turbo's, and all that grunt going through an auto box!) or 150k 530i (petrol)? I would definately be going for the latter.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:23
Go back to petrol: would you? - DP
I still prefer diesel to petrol in day to day use. I find modern petrol engines fitted to average mass market cars on the whole to be lifeless, characterless things which increasingly struggle with the weight of modern cars. If you look at, for example, a Clio which now weighs the wrong side of 1200kg in higher spec guise, against a Renault 5 from 20 years ago that would have been sub 900kg whatever you wanted on it, the increase in power and efficiency of the engine has not kept pace with this year-on-year bloating of kerbweights. I know a Renault 5 is inferior to a current Clio in most respects, but in viewed purely in terms of performance and general "liveliness", a 1.4 Renault 5 would wipe the floor with a 1.4 Clio in any measurable comparison apart from maybe top speed. How relevant is that in daily use though?

There's also the way modern multivalve engines are tuned, in that they just don't do anything worhty of note unless you're in the upper half of the rev range. Great when you're "on one", but when you've got the kids in the back and just want to make relaxed progress, I'll take 250 odd NM from barely more than idle. A modern common rail diesel when properly insulated is virtually no louder than a petrol engine. I do agree though that modern diesels are compromised in terms of economy and durability / reliability compared to their ancestors.

I don't understand the comments about the limited rev range of a diesel in a daily driver. When was the last time you honestly exceeded 4,500-5,000 RPM driving to work or down to the shops? Under these speeds, a typical diesel engine makes more torque, more power and returns significantly better economy than an equivalent naturally aspirated petrol engine. The dislike of the clatter and noise, I completely understand, but again, the sound of a typical modern 4 pot petrol engine is hardly inspiring.

In a pure performance car though, I'd still choose petrol every time. A diesel cannot match the subtle throttle response of a good petrol engine, and their lack of engine braking makes balancing the car mid-corner much more tricky. It's also more likely you will drive this type of car harder, and therefore the lack of revs would be frustrating. However, for the foreseeable future, my cars are going to be first and foremost commuting tools and kiddie transport, and in these driving conditions, I choose diesel every time. They do so much more at the revs I drive at daily.

Cheers
DP

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:28
Go back to petrol: would you? - DavidHM
1.4 R5 = 60bhp with the old C-type engine. (They never put the 82 bhp Energy engine from the R19/Clio in it).

1.4 Clio (new) = 100 bhp, so about 67 bhp/tonne vs 83 bhp/tonne... of course the old 1.7 8v R5 with 92 bhp and masses of torque was a hell of a Q-car and remarkably luxurious for its day.

But I do take your point... we're getting more power, generally better economy and more space from our cars than we were 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but not necessarily more performance or lower repair costs because of increased complexity and weight.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:28
Go back to petrol: would you? - No FM2R
>>When was the last time you honestly exceeded 4,500-5,000 RPM driving to work or down to the shops?

In the Merc ? Every single time I go to work during the week.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:30
Go back to petrol: would you? - DavidHM
Ditto... well 4k RPM anyway. And I drive a diesel. Didn't stop some pink fluffy dice in a 320d tailgating me down a sliproad, whilst I was booting it, like I was towing him this morning.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 19:10
Go back to petrol: would you? - Blue {P}
>>When was the last time you honestly exceeded 4,500-5,000 RPM driving
to work or down to the shops?
In the Merc ? Every single time I go to work
during the week.


Yeah, I tend to stop just short of the red-line in my 6 cylinder petrol BMW almost every day, I do it especially going down slip roads as I like to get up to 70mph as fast as the car wukk comfortably manage it, also pulling away from my street is a bit of a nightmare, straight onto a 60mph road, I tend to accelerate up to 30mph before even attempting to change into second gear.

Blue
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 19:47
Go back to petrol: would you? - Big Bad Dave
"When was the last time you honestly exceeded 4,500-5,000 RPM driving to work or down to the shops?"

Each and every journey. In Sport setting, 5000 is a normal change, 6000 if I'm in a hurry.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 20:02
Go back to petrol: would you? - mss1tw
You guys are so cool. 8-)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 13:58
Go back to petrol: would you? - boxsterboy
Cheers
DP


My sentiments entirely.

{Excessive quoting of message being replied to removed -
See www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=42612 for guidance - DD}
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:18
Go back to petrol: would you? - Roly93
I wouldnt go back.
I've hd disels for 5 years now and they just keep getting better, whilst petrols are at the peak realy of what is technically possible.
I'll admit that the 4p per litre difference is annoying and out of order . However assuming an average 2 litre petrol car gives about 32 mpg on a typical drive down the M4 whilst my diesel is doing 50 mpg on the same trip, this means that the diesel is costing 8.5p per mile as opposed to 12.3p per mile for the petrol.
Added to this the mid-range grunt and the effortless ability to maintain motorway speeds and the low cost of diesel on my frequent trips to the continent, there is no contest.
Many diesels are now quieter at speed than equivalent petrols also.
Okay diesels are a bit dearer to service, but this is minimal now given the extended service intervals.
A good diesel shouldn't be dirty anyway, and I've followed plenty of petrols which whilst dont make black smoke, DO stink like hell when the air vents such in the invisible noxious fumes that get chucked out.
Also, diesels do cost more to buy, but this is pretty much offset by the ease of re-sale and higher residual values.
This is only my personal view and I wouldn't want to force it on anyone, as low mileage drivers are probably better off sticking to petrols.
But I do say 'stay with petrol so there's more diesel for us derv drivers' !
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:23
Go back to petrol: would you? - DavidHM
Will, what you haven't said is how many miles you do per year.

At the moment I'm dieseling despite only doing 10k miles (which is less than half what I had been doing with a long commute although I end up driving in because there's no convenient train once a week or so).

I think, on balance, I would prefer a diesel all other things being equal (so much easier to say ceteris paribus but I'll spare you the Latin) but if you're looking at paying a £3k premium on a three-year-old car and then only doing 10k a year it's crazy to go down the diesel route.

So er... horses for courses as has been said above but if you're not doing 15 - 20k I would go back to petrol - because with some cars and a low annual mileage, even a V6 would be cheaper if the torque matters.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:31
Go back to petrol: would you? - nortones2
It isn't always necessary to travel a big mileage to justify diesel purchase. Leaving aside personal preference, the extra initial cost is usually, if not always, defrayed by the greater resale price of a diesel. Depreciation is the greatest single factor of the cost of ownership, for new or recent registration vehicles. The total sum should be considered, not just the fuel, intial and running cost, ignoring the biggest factor, depreciation. The outcome varies from make to make, and between models.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:32
Go back to petrol: would you? - Xileno {P}
Petrol for me next time. The Renault dCi engine is very smooth, quiet, fast and economical. Plus mine has given no trouble at all in almost 30K. But it's the thought of what might go wrong out of warranty that puts me off.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:47
Go back to petrol: would you? - Aprilia
Diesel make good sense if you're covering 20k+ PA
For anything less its petrol. I don't like the driving characteristics of Diesel (and I've tried Mercs, BMW, Ford, Vauxhall, Renault and Pug). I love a rev-happy petrol engine, esp. a V6 or a Subaru flat-four. Diesels belong in vans and trucks - no one with an 'ear' for engines likes a Diesel.
Moreover I can fix pretty well any petrol engine I lay my hands on - special equipment requirments are minimal. Modern Diesels are vastly over-complicated (sensors, pumps, 'intelligent injectors', turbo etc etc), the parts are ruinously expensive and you need a workshop full of expensive diagnostic equipment just to set up the idle!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:37
Go back to petrol: would you? - peterb
Diesels are good for company car tax, fuel economy, continental Europe and CO2 (but possibly not other forms of polution).

Otherwise, why?

Yes, the torque is amusing but the limited torque at low revs of a petrol engine is irrelevent if the engine's mated to a slick autobox that will kickdown two or three gears in no time at all.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:42
Go back to petrol: would you? - paulb {P}
Yes, the torque is amusing but the limited torque at low
revs of a petrol engine is irrelevent if the engine's mated
to a slick autobox that will kickdown two or three gears
in no time at all.

>>

Or even a slick manual in which the ratios are matched well to the power and torque peaks of the engine - the new Panda 100HP is surprisingly good (well, to me, anyway) in that respect.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:13
Go back to petrol: would you? - craig-pd130
I have an ear for an engine and like to drive & ride .... and I don't think I'd go back to petrol in a family car.

I've had a Volvo 2.0T and a T4, both fairly state-of-the-art (for 5 years ago) petrol turbos and my current B5.5 Passat 130 sport is just as quick on the road.

OK, the handling is dull, safe with little feedback but it's predictable so you can push it hard.

The grunt is great, and I don't understand the talk of "narrow power bands". At 21mph / 1000rpm in 4th gear, the Passat's "narrow power band" of 1500 - 4500rpm, means REAL pull from 30 to 90+mph. I don't call a 60+mph effective acceleration range narrow.

Try putting your foot down in 4th gear at 30-odd mph in a petrol Honda Accord, or even a BMW 320i, and see how far you get. And no-one ever drives in the VTEC zone / on the cam all the time.

A 4-pot diesel is not musical, true. But then again, a 4-pot petrol isn't either, whether in-line, V4 or flat 4. You need an odd number, or an even number higher than 4, for real music :-)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 13:52
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
Can't really answer the mileage question. My S60, on its fourth birthday, had done about 47,000 miles - but it had done 29,000 of those by its second birthday. A change of job meant a shorter commute and fewer business miles. Now I'm contemplating another change that will probably put both figures up again, but probably not beyond 15,000 p.a. I picked 50,000 miles as a sort of 'lifetime value' because how long I keep the next car will depend on how hard I use it. At best, I'm probably a marginal case on purely financial grounds for picking a diesel, but I'd have another D5 in a flash if it was in the right body - it really does everything I want from an engine.

Anyway, don't worry too much about me - I intended this more as a forum for knocking about the broader issues of diesel ownership, for and against.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:09
Go back to petrol: would you? - TheOilBurner
Another bonus of petrol engines: they generally warm up much quicker than diesels.

I've really noticed this recently, having changed from one to the other during a cold spell. OK - a bit of cold isn't the end of the world, but I'd still rather be warmer, sooner! :)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:16
Go back to petrol: would you? - No Do$h
Another bonus of petrol engines: they generally warm up much quicker
than diesels.


Landrover have got around this by fitting a Webasto Fuel-burning heater that kicks in when the ambient temp is below 5c when starting a cold engine. All down to the relative thermal efficiency of modern diesel engines versus petrols; more of your hard earned pennies go into producing excess heat in a petrol engine.

The Webasto approach appeals as it only kicks in when you need it rather than having engineers considering the optimal balance between fuel efficiency and passenger comfort when working out the optimal engine mapping.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:19
Go back to petrol: would you? - TheOilBurner
>> Another bonus of petrol engines: they generally warm up much
quicker
>> than diesels.
Landrover have got around this by fitting a Webasto Fuel-burning heater
that kicks in when the ambient temp is below 5c when
starting a cold engine.


Oh great - another complicated feature to overcome the shortcomings of diesel, no doubt to go wrong at considerable expense!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:23
Go back to petrol: would you? - No Do$h
Thermal efficiency is a shortcoming? You prefer more of the calorific value of your fuel to be in the form of waste heat rather than motive force?

Go for it.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:25
Go back to petrol: would you? - cheddar
Reckon it depends on the car, i.e. as the OP says a 9-5 petrol is quite appealing though the 2.2 DTi is not.

My Mondeo is worth more to me to keep than to trade or sell, i.e. it drives almost as new though due to its relatively high mileage is worth next to peanuts hence a new car is not on the short term agenda, however ....

... I quite fancy an A3 Sportback in which case a 170 TDi would make sense though if I could get a 2.0TFSi for similar money it would be very very tempting despite a loss of 15 mpg.

On the otherhand a year or two old 3 Series Touring would fit the bill, a 330i would be great though offers so little over a 330d I would most probably take the economical option.

Likewise the wife fancies a Verso, none of the petrols offer any advantages over the 2.2 D-Cat.

And if she did get a Verso I might be tempted to drive a smaller car day to day, the new Clio is very nice though the choice of engine would be a no brainer, the 2.0 138 petrol over a 1,5 DCi any day.

As I say it depends on the car.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:26
Go back to petrol: would you? - No FM2R
>>diesels blah modern blah thermal blah underwear.

ND, you've sold the Alfa, haven't you. I can tell.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:32
Go back to petrol: would you? - No Do$h
The Alfa was a modern thermally efficient diesel too. It just sounded like a tractor, whereas the Discovery doubles as one.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:34
Go back to petrol: would you? - No FM2R
Pardon ?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:34
Go back to petrol: would you? - TheOilBurner
No - thermal efficiency is a fine, but you gain economy and lose cabin warmth on a cold start. That's all.

My wider point is that in the pursuit of making the highly thermal efficient diesel engine usable we've been forced to add more and more ancillary features, all prone to expensive failure.

I don't personally care about thermal efficiency. All I care about is total running costs and not being stranded/visiting the dealer regularly.

If the diesel shows no significant advantage on running costs (IMO it doesn't always) and the reliability suffers, then petrol is a rational choice.

To those people stating that diesels hold their value better, take a look at typical What Car 3 year value retained rates. Yes, diesels will hold 2-3% better of their purchase price, but they are also considerably more expensive to buy.

I also note with interest that following a large number of dCI failures, Renault (as an example) have now shortened the diesel service interval to 9K/12K but left the petrols at 18k. Service costs and convenience come into play here.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:39
Go back to petrol: would you? - No Do$h
Valid point. The history of the Webasto installation on the Discovery hasn't been exactly free of blemishes.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:39
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
>...lose cabin warmth on a cold start...

Which is when you're glad you paid the extra £150 for heated front seats! Probably throws away a lot of the economy benefit of diesel but I only ever use mine for the first five minutes, just until the cabin's warmed up. Mrs dB's petrol Fabia doesn't need them - the heater's blowing hot air by the time you get to the traffic lights at the end of our road, 400m away.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 14:59
Go back to petrol: would you? - Soupytwist
I'm actively considering going back to petrol in a couple of years when I get rid of my Octavia diesel estate (if all goes to plan). I'd like a Subaru Legacy estate and they're only available currently in petrol form.
News that Subaru are developing a diesel engine is welcome as there will hopefully be mass trade in by the country vets and other owners tempted by the diesel economy when the time comes; hence lower purchase prices for 2nd hand petrol engined models. I do about 20,000 miles per year so I can't say that there's a clear case for a diesel on economy grounds. I may miss the reasonably relaxed drivng style of the diesel but hopefully I'll be able to afford the 2.5 litre engined Legacy.
I am also concerned about long term reliability of CR diesel systems (largely through what I've read on here admittedly) and I'll need a car with more space in a couple of years time due to growing family.

There is one possible flaw in this cunning plan - my wife doesn't like the way the Legacy looks.
--
Soupytwist !
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 15:06
Go back to petrol: would you? - TheOilBurner
I'm not sure the long term reliability of CR is the only issue, it's the short to medium term too.

Mine failed on the most common fault for the engine at 38k miles, which apparently is good going because they tend to go anywhere between 5-20k miles in this case...

I can only see 3rd party warranties becoming more and more popular.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 15:13
Go back to petrol: would you? - paulb {P}
Mine failed on the most common fault for the engine at
38k miles, which apparently is good going because they tend to
go anywhere between 5-20k miles in this case...


What car was this, just out of interest?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 15:18
Go back to petrol: would you? - TheOilBurner
2004 Vectra 1.9 CDTI 150.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, judging from the comments on www.vectra-c.com, they *all* seem to suffer from defective swirl valves, something that requires a whole new (modified design) inlet manifold + swirl valve actuator and 5 hours labour. Total cost appox £1000.

Turbos, injectors and DMFs have been reported to go wrong quite often too, although I have been lucky with mine so far.

I've already swapped it for another car, but will be trading it in once the warranty work is complete.

It actually went wrong (limp mode and EML) on the way to the dealers to trade it in....! Laugh or cry, I couldn't decide!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 15:10
Go back to petrol: would you? - Roly93
There is one possible flaw in this cunning plan - my
wife doesn't like the way the Legacy looks.

The Subaru is a fine car, as long as you can put up with their drink-habit, you will notice a siesmic change in fuel costs from your Skoda diesel.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 17:51
Go back to petrol: would you? - cjehuk
I've just bought my first Petrol car in 7 years of driving. I would not have a 4 cylinder diesel, too unrefined but I'd happily have a 6 or 8. Equally though I'd have a 4 cylinder diesel over a non turbocharged 4 cylinder petrol. I want an engine with lots of low down power, I don't mind what the source is as long as it gives me the best trade off. Right now I can afford a TT with a 2.0T FSI engine, I can't afford an A4 with a 3.0TDI engine. Horses for courses.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 19:27
Go back to petrol: would you? - storme
im sure i read somewhere. or maybe Jeremy Clarkson said it....you have to do 28000 miles a year to reap the benefits of a diesel car??

as i do 4000 a yr a diesel is no good for me
--
sometimes a little bit too much opinion....but its only because i care !!!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 19:56
Go back to petrol: would you? - tr7v8
I've made this comment before. I swore that I'd have no more diesels but ended up with one anyway. Why did I buy a Jag 2.7DSE?
Road tax, all the time this moronic goverment prefer filthy soot to CO2 then I have no option. The Jag is Tax F whereas the petrol 3.0 litre is G. It was obvious which way the Chancellor was going! Is it more economical, I don't think so most report getting 35MPG on a run in the petrol whereas the diesel is struggling to do 36-37 in mixed driving. So I suspect the real world CO2 is probably the same!
One of the reasons the economy on short journies is that it takes an age to warm up, typically 15-20 miles before it's upto full working temp.
It is incredibly complex, 2 cam belts, 2 cam chains, 2 turbo's! Thank god it's under warranty! The equivalent petrol is one cam chain & no turbos.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 20:00
Go back to petrol: would you? - sony
Diesel for me everytime. Love the masses of torque, effortless cruising at motorway speeds. Could never own a non turbo car. And most turbocharged petrol cars drink heavily.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 08:45
Go back to petrol: would you? - L'escargot
Diesel for me everytime. Love the masses of torque ........


Only at the engine. The ratio of torque at the wheels (which is where it matters) to engine torque is much lower in a diesel because of the higher gearing. I just wish motoring journalists would learn about that and stopped misleading the motoring public with their waffle about engine torque.
--
L\'escargot.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 20:08
Go back to petrol: would you? - nortones2
Its no good listening to the "28,000 a year" pontifications: you have to do the homework yourself. Some cars are much better resale with diesel under the bonnet, some not so. Autocar had a table of depreciation losses which indicated that VW, Audi, BMW etc were likely to be less damaging in diesel than petrol: its the depreciation thats the major pain.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 20:24
Go back to petrol: would you? - Westpig
i don't like small engined anything......if i had to have a small engine, it might as well be diesel as i'm not going to enjoy it anyway, so might as well reap the economy

mid sized engines....i prefer petrol.......smoother and you can rev them......but resent the costs, thanks to Gordon

big engines......tempted to say petrol ( i adore my petrol V6 and a V8 noise is to die for)....but have never driven a really big diesel...presume something like a V8 diesel would be pretty good, mated with an auto box

was impressed with the S Type 2.7 diesel i test drove though, so maybe mixed feelings, purely because of the economy........if it wasn't for that it'd be petrol every time

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 20:30
Go back to petrol: would you? - tr7v8
big engines......tempted to say petrol ( i adore my petrol V6
and a V8 noise is to die for)....but have never driven
a really big diesel...presume something like a V8 diesel would be
pretty good, mated with an auto box
was impressed with the S Type 2.7 diesel i test drove
though, so maybe mixed feelings, purely because of the economy........if it
wasn't for that it'd be petrol every time

My Tr7V8 does 32-33MPG on a run & that's 220BHP, combination of high gearing & relatively light weight ;-)

That's the point I was making the jag isn't that much more economical given its complexity & the extra cost of fuel.
I think the skewing of road tax will make the market more skewed in favour of diesel & affect the resale & hence depreciation.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 22:05
Go back to petrol: would you? - Micky
It's probably been asked elsewhere in this thread, but what is your mileage?

Having spent most of the weekend at Stoneleigh, I think the real question is: GT40 or quattro evo 2? And not a deseased car to be seen.

www.historicmotorsportshow.com/
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 22:20
Go back to petrol: would you? - Martin1981
I'm still only on my second car in nearly 7 years and 100,000 miles of driving, the first being a Peugeot 309 1.9D and the second and current being a 306 1.9TD. Both have been a joy to own and drive and have rarely returned less than 40mpg, even round town. When my elderly 306TD bows out, my next car will surely enough be a diesel and have no intention of switching to a petrol. I drive approximately 20k per annum which comprises a mixture of motorway/ A road and urban driving, so the more miles per gallon and the less I have to give Gordon Brown the better in my opinion.

Martin
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 22:27
Go back to petrol: would you? - mss1tw
Yeah, I guess I would. Haven't really though about it. Bought mine because I wanted to own one believe it or not. I find them more interesting than vanilla petrol engines which is all I can afford. Turbos, intercoolers...great! (Don't do CR though!)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 11:39
Go back to petrol: would you? - Group B
Having spent most of the weekend at Stoneleigh, I think the
real question is: GT40 or quattro evo 2? And not a
deseased car to be seen.


I was there too on Saturday Micky, great to see all the Group B cars again.
I was late getting there, just missed the end of the first rally demonstration, busting for a pee so I went to the loo and Stig Blomqvist was just coming out of the bogs as I went in. Not seen a picture of him for years and was surprised I recognised him straight away.

Michele Mouton gave it some proper welly in the quattro too!

Great stuff...
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 21:02
Go back to petrol: would you? - Micky
">Michele Mouton gave it some proper welly in the quattro too!<"

Yes! And she must be even older than me, so there's hope yet. The Parc Ferme during start up was intoxicating, it's quite surreal to wander around an agricultural college/showground and have to jump out of the way of 6R4, RS200 or a quattro.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 28 Mar 2007 22:51
Go back to petrol: would you? - slowdown avenue
have recently gone back to petrol,after 20 years in a diesel. putting petrol into my last diesel tank, didnt want to do that again,. must say i agree with everthing thats been said on this subject.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 00:13
Go back to petrol: would you? - Robin Reliant
I've had diesels exclusively for the last fifteen years and I love the lazy way they drive and even the clatter from the engine. But now being down to an annual milage of around 15k, as opposed to the thiry or forty I used to do I am not sure if I would get another. Diesel prices seem to be permanantly pulling away from petrol over and above the normal seasonal variations, and they are definately out of favour with Gorden when it comes to tax hikes. Having had to buy an alternator, starter motor, battery and discs and pads for this car, the conversations always go like this;

"I want a whatsit for a Mondeo"

"We've got one of those sir, that will be £XX"

"It's a diesel"

"Oh, in that case I'm afraid it'll be £XXXX"

Bearable when diesel was cheaper than petrol, but the economics have now changed.
--
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 01:10
Go back to petrol: would you? - David Horn
One simply reason why I drive a diesel: laziness.

I like being able to pull away without touching the accelerator, or stalling inadvertently. The only time I've stalled this car is when I tried to pull away in 5th gear by mistake. The fact that 4th gear covers 15mph ----> 80mph. The fact I only have to fill up every 600 miles. The fact that I can dump cack out of the exhaust if someone annoys me. The lack of white smoke on cold days. The huge whack of power from the turbo charger at 75mph if I want to overtake.

Etc.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 12:27
Go back to petrol: would you? - Roly93
mistake. The fact that 4th gear covers 15mph ----> 80mph.

Crikey ! What car do you drive then ?
Most of the diesel cars I know would be shaking your fillings out if accelerating from 15mph in 4th.
I am a diesel fan by the way....
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 01:26
Go back to petrol: would you? - cheddar
alternator, starter motor, battery and discs and
pads for this car, the conversations always go like this;
"I want a whatsit for a Mondeo"
"We've got one of those sir, that will be £XX"
"It's a diesel"
"Oh, in that case I'm afraid it'll be £XXXX"


Discs and pads are the same on all MkIIIs, touch wood havent needed any of the other items in 115k miies.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 03:40
Go back to petrol: would you? - Blue {P}
It would have to be a very nice diesel car to make me switch back to diesel.

I got rid of my Focus TDCi last year, whilst there was nothing especially wrong with it, I think that the BMW that replaced it with a 6 cylinder petrol engine is just so much smoother and more refined that I could never put up with a diesel again unless it made a very good case for itself. A Volvo S60 D5, or a Mondog ST TDCi sound like the only cars that could tempt me back, but even then I would be looking on with envy at the owners of proper ST220's with the lovely 3.0 V6.

Blue
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 08:53
Go back to petrol: would you? - Mad Maxy
Blimey, Blue, you're talking 6 cylinders versus 4! No wonder petrol wins for you... Agree that a decent multi-cylinder petrol motor is seductive - I've had a BMW 323i and a Porsche 911.

But how about a nice 330d?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 09:33
Go back to petrol: would you? - Blue {P}
Blimey, Blue, you're talking 6 cylinders versus 4! No wonder petrol
wins for you... Agree that a decent multi-cylinder petrol motor is
seductive - I've had a BMW 323i and a Porsche 911.
But how about a nice 330d?


I have to agree, I've driven a 330d and thought it was nice and it could almost win out over a petrol, however, I looked at the fuel computer on the one I drove... 32mpg! (ok it was an auto) So in real life it'll be getting about 5 or 6 mpg more than I get from my 323Ci. That kind of defeats the point of buying the diesel in the first place. Perhaps a manual would be a lot better.

Blue
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 23:37
Go back to petrol: would you? - Chips with everything
The manual would certainly be more economical.

I drive an E39 530d (manual) and average 42mpg - it certainly doesn't have an easy life either! The 3 series of that age is obviously lighter than the 5 so I'd think you be looking at 45 (ish).

The torque curve is wonderfully 'petrol' flat and not at all 'peaky', it's deceptively quick.

I've had a few petrols and a few diesels and woudln't change this (6 cylinder) diesel for an equivilant petrol.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 08:54
Go back to petrol: would you? - OldHand
I've had a so called 'high power' diesel and it was an extremely boring car despite people raving about it. I even had it remapped so it was outputting 300bhp and god knows how much torque. It still failed to thrill, a whump and it would lunge it's way towards the horizon at a fair old lick while boring it's driver to death. Likewise it felt very nose heavy in bends compared to the 3ltr petrol variant I'd driven.

Would I get rid of the RS4 to go back to a stinky old 535? Not on your nelly, I leave that to people who get excited about 40mpg rather than the enjoyment of driving.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 09:27
Go back to petrol: would you? - DP
Would I get rid of the RS4 to go back to
a stinky old 535? Not on your nelly


Surely that's as much to do with the car itself as the engine though. They're fundamentally different machines, even if you completely remove the engine from the equation.

They're a class apart, with the 5 being a much bigger, heavier car than the A4 based RS4. The Audi is manual, the BMW is automatic. The Audi is akin to BMW's M series cars in that it's developed as a stand alone, high end performance car with bespoke suspension settings and chassis enhancements. The 5 is a "cooking" 5 series model which even BMW's marketeers don't compare to their own M5, let alone the M3 which is the logical rival for your RS4.

I mentioned earlier that I think a petrol engine is preferable to diesel in a pure performance car, and I tend to agree with your sentiments. However, when you look at the comparison the vast majority of people make <=2.2 litre 4 cyl petrol versus <= 2.2 litre 4 cyl diesel, in a car purchased primarily for carting the family about and trundling to work and back, rather than going out and enjoying a blast, the argument is much less clear.

To put it simply, the two cars you mention, one's a "full on" performance car, and the other is a cruiser, albeit a very quick one. It's no wonder you find one drastically more exciting than the other.

Cheers
DP

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 11:47
Go back to petrol: would you? - L'escargot
No way Pedro! The spillage around the pumps plays havoc with my Guccis. I'm not going to change into industrial shoes every time I fill up.
--
L\'escargot.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 12:05
Go back to petrol: would you? - rogue-trooper
Why is the Grandis ruined by its diesel engine? (just asking as I have one and not sure what you are trying to point out - apart from the noise!!)


Personally driven diesel for the past 13 years and can't see myself going back to petrol.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 13:39
Go back to petrol: would you? - The Gingerous One
If you're not a mini-cab driver, a white-van man or running a bus company or a haulage company or driving 30k+miles p.a. then it's petrol.

Had a week in Dubai recently and they agreed, everyone drove petrols (but then petrol £1/gallon there).

I can get 40mpg on a run in a 1.8 normally-aspirated petrol which develops about 120bhp. My previous car had a 2.0L petrol developing 150bhp and I could get 40mpg on a run in that. So why would you need a diesel if they can only (at best) manage 10mpg more than this and that's with turbochargers et al to give the same power of a petrol engine ?

If I was a delivery driver, a truck driver or a bus driver or drove 30k miles p.a. then I'd buy a diesel. Otherwise I fail to see the point.

Might be pointing out that I've never spent more than £2k (usually a lot less) on any car in 17 years of driving so depreciation is pretty fixed : £2k at the most for my current car as that's what I paid for it and worst case is that's worth nothing. Paying say £600 for a new turbo charger at this price level doesn't make any sense at all so I chose not to by not buying cars with one. Unlike my mate who has an Audi A4 T reg V6 TDi, ooops new turbo and it's 8 years old.

I'd buy a late Primera GT (150bhp, 40mpg on a run, ABS, aircon, isn't that all we need ?) for £2k and spend the rest of the money on an E-type or a.n.other project to tinker with in the garage when the kids are in bed and "Wife Swap" is on the tele. Perhaps some new curtains to keep the missus happy, or a dishwasher if you don't already have one.....
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 13:56
Go back to petrol: would you? - rogue-trooper
If you're not a mini-cab driver, a white-van man or running
a bus company or a haulage company or driving 30k+miles p.a.
then it's petrol.

If I was a delivery driver, a truck driver or a
bus driver or drove 30k miles p.a. then I'd buy a
diesel. Otherwise I fail to see the point.


I am not sure why this argument always comes up as the only reason for driving a DERV. I first got a diesel when I was doing about 50k a year but those days are long gone and I wouldn't go back. I prefer the way a diesel delivers its power. I remember a few years back driving my cousins e36 325i when I had an e36 325tds - hated his as in order to go anywhere the engine always had to be revved up to about 5k rpm.

Apart from that, I like to be able to get mid-hig 40s mpg on a long m'way journey in a 3 litre diesel estate whilst not pumping out huge amounts of CO2 (as that is in vogue these days!!) albeit pumping out PM10s and other smaller PMs
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 14:32
Go back to petrol: would you? - L'escargot
My previous car had a 2.0L
petrol developing 150bhp and I could get 40mpg on a run
in that.


My 130ps 2 litre petrol gives a genuine overall average of 39 mpg, and I don't treat it gently. If I treated it gently I'd have to siphon some petrol out every so often to stop it overflowing! Diesel? Eugh!
--
L\'escargot.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 13:32
Go back to petrol: would you? - paulb {P}
No way Pedro! The spillage around the pumps plays havoc
with my Guccis. I'm not going to change into industrial
shoes every time I fill up.


Valid point, and I have to ask - who are these people who splash the stuff all over the place so liberally? How on earth do they manage it? Inattention?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 13:58
Go back to petrol: would you? - rogue-trooper
>> No way Pedro! The spillage around the pumps plays
havoc
>> with my Guccis. I'm not going to change into
industrial
>> shoes every time I fill up.
Valid point, and I have to ask - who are these
people who splash the stuff all over the place so liberally?
How on earth do they manage it? Inattention?


they don't shake enough when pulling the nozzle out. also brimming it and not judging properly.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 16:12
Go back to petrol: would you? - Lud
The spillage around the pumps plays havoc
with my Guccis.


Do you mean 'Gucci Gucci goo' by any chance? :o)
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 18:52
Go back to petrol: would you? - L'escargot
Do you mean 'Gucci Gucci goo' by any chance?
:o)


If you say so m'lud! ;-)
--
L\'escargot.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 21:49
Go back to petrol: would you? - AlastairW
No way Pedro! The spillage around the pumps plays havoc with my Guccis. I'm not going to change into industrial shoes every time I fill up.
--
But they spill there cursed fuel all round the petrol pumps too. I think they should make them all fill up at one DERV pump at the back of the filling station with the trucks, like they used to!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 04:30
Go back to petrol: would you? - L'escargot
I think they should make them all fill up
at one DERV pump at the back of the filling station
with the trucks, like they used to!


Next time I see a suggestion box I'll put that in!
--
L\'escargot.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 14:45
Go back to petrol: would you? - Quinny100
My first diesel was a 93 Xantia 1.9 TD - bought it in 2001 with 194k on the clock. It was getting a bit tatty on the outside after 12 months, and the hydraulics were starting to play up a bit so I swapped it for a 2000 Focus 1.8 Ghia Petrol. Despite having an extra 25BHP on paper it was a real effort to drive briskly and needed to be revved hard compared to the Xantia. I quickly got fed up with it and bought a Mondeo TDCi 130, and then a Mondeo ST 2.2 TDCi. IMO you can't beat a diesel on the motorway - mine will happily amble along at a touch over 2000RPM at 80mph with the engine inaudiable and at peak torque if you need to increase speed.

Would I buy petrol again? Certainly not a 4 cylinder NA one. I have considered an ST220 (3.0 V6) but that would use almost double the amount of fuel my current TDCi does so its a bit of a non-starter. The only thing that would tempt me is a VAG 2.0T as found in the Golf GTI/Ocatavia VRS et al, its a nice engine with decent low down torque, but it needs Super Unleaded or Optimax for best performance and thats even dearer than diesel.

9-5 Turbo Petrols are not without their own issues (turbos and oil sludge to name but two) that cost similar money to fix to diesel injection problems.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 15:51
Go back to petrol: would you? - uk_in_usa
I'd never have a diesel.

The only cars I have had problems with in 20 years motoring have been diesels.

I read about all the issues on this board with the new complicated common rail diesel systems

No thanks!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 16:16
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
>Why is the Grandis ruined by its diesel engine?

The noise is the thing, AM. The Ford and Citroen 2.0D engines I've tried in similar vehicles are recognizably diesels when working hard, but not unpleasantly so and they fade into the background when cruising. The Grandis diesel I tried shook the entire car and was intrusive all the time. It also seemed ill-matched to its gear ratios - I was constantly checking to see if I ought to be in the gear above or below.

I quite liked the way it rode and steered on a quickish B-road, but I had my four-year-old with me and couldn't hear what he was saying even at 40-50mph. It turned out to be "Daddy, let's get out of this noisy old car!"

The point of a car like this, to me, is that it should have the space and comfort to make a long family trip an adventure rather than a chore. The Grandis has the space but, for my money, is let down badly by an engine it wasn't designed for. Which is why I started to wonder whether a petrol version might be a sensible buy - at a suitably diminished price, of course.

I agree on the point about diesel power delivery - a good one is a pleasure to drive, regardless of arguments about fuel consumption. Knowing that, having been baulked by a truck in the middle lane, a mere tweak of the ankle will get you back to cruising speed the moment a gap appears in the next lane, makes even a 130PS turbodiesel a much more relaxing drive than any 130PS petrol engine. Add the fuel consumption benefit and you have what ought to be a watertight case; it's just come as a shock to discover that they're not all as good as the one I'm used to.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 16:19
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
And another thing...

...how many forecourts these days have separate diesel pumps? Not the ones I visit anyway, so you're still treading in other people's diesel even if you're holding the green nozzle instead of the black one.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 16:55
Go back to petrol: would you? - rogue-trooper
WdB, yes the VAG derv in the Grandis is noisy but I don't find too bad. As is SWMBO's I don't mind and she certainly wouldn't notice or care!!! If I owned it I would prefer a little more sound proofing. However I do think it a bit strange when you said it rocked the car. Was this an exagerration about the noise or was the engine really rocking the car? Mine is stable as you like.

The only other thing that I don't like about the Grandis is that it can get quite bad torque steer
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 17:11
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
When I said 'shook' I was thinking of vibration rather than rocking - higher frequency, lower amplitude! Uncomfortable, though.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 17:51
Go back to petrol: would you? - guygamps
I think you are right about the Grandis Diesel... I have just a couple of months back.. bought a mint condition 2 year old petrol Grandis,,, see my posting as to why I chose the Grandis.

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=48...8

two months on, we all still love it. Interestingly I know what you mean about not hearing your children speak, my youngest who is 6, speaks very quietly, in our (petrol) Galaxy 2.3Ghia you couldn't really hear her over the road noise (not engine noise). In the Grandis you can.

The Grandis petrol is very very good, smooth, and poweful, but thirsty.

Around town getting around 20mpg
on a normal motorway run 24mpg
best achievable (severely speed restricted motorway run) 28mpg

I miss the heated seats though that the Galaxy (and the Scorpio I had before) had. Sitting on the cold leather seats first thing isn't too much fun, but it warms up quicker than any car I have known.

All my other comments about the car still stand - it is a great, and a very good buy. Though I have noticed local ford dealer is heavily discounting either new or pre-reg S-MAXs mind you which has narrowed the gap, I was so disappointed with the folding rear seat design, I still think I would have chosen the Grandis, and at the time S-MAXs were not being discounted heavily, (January).

Guy
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Thu 29 Mar 2007 23:43
Go back to petrol: would you? - Sofa Spud
I doubt it I would ever go back to a petrol-engined car unless I buy a classic car for a hobby. My 12 year-old VW Passat 1.9TDI estate has done 168,000 miles and does about 50 mpg. I even prefer the friendly chumble of its engine noise to the raspy exhaust note of a petrol engine!

Every sector of the vehicle market that started down the diesel route has eventually 'gone diesel'. Heavy lorries and buses went diesel in the 1930's, lighter trucks and buses between then and the 1960's. Farm tractors went from petrol or parrafin to diesel by the 1960's. Light vans like Transits are nearly 100% diesel now but 30 years ago only a few were.

Last year the outright winner of the LeMans 24-hour race was diesel powered (Audi R8 V10TDI).

Diesel engines will run on a biodiesel blend. While we are unlikely to ever meet our roadfuel needs from biofuel alone because of the acreage of land needed to grow the crops, the blend percentage is likely to increase. As fossil fuels run out the dwindling supplies can be eked out by adding biodiesel. The same might be true with bioethanol for petrol engines but I've heard that takes a lot of energy to produce and petrol engines need to be modified to run on it.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 04:26
Go back to petrol: would you? - jase1
Diesel engines will run on a biodiesel blend. While we
are unlikely to ever meet our roadfuel needs from biofuel alone
because of the acreage of land needed to grow the crops,
the blend percentage is likely to increase.


Biodiesel. Heh, now there's a larf.

The biodiesel we're getting currently is, to a large extent, coming from palm oil. Shipped over from places like SE Asia.

It's actually far more destructive to the environment than plain diesel will ever be. More weight of palm oil is required to make the biodiesel than is derived from crude (when you factor in the other fuel products produced out of the crude). And seeing as the stuff is being shipped half-way round the world to get here, it's producing pollution in effect rather than reducing it.

Another colossal con from the oil companies and the powers-that-be. It's the Tesco approach to getting fresh veggies on the shelves writ large.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 11:38
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
>The biodiesel we're getting currently is, to a large extent, coming from palm oil ... It's actually far more destructive to the environment than plain diesel will ever be.

True. The idea seems so good in principle, but when you think what an indirect form of solar power it is, with so many stages at which energy can be wasted (solar energy trapped in leaves as sugar, converted in plants to oil, plants harvested and transported to refinery, refined fuel distributed to filling stations, finally converted into heat and noise as well as motion by 19th-century engine technology) it becomes less convincing, and similar problems apply to bioethanol for petrol engines too, nice idea as that is. Politicians like it because it appears to offer a reduction in fossil fuel use without forcing consumers to change their ways. George Monbiot's article here www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2043724,...l is worth a read on this subject.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 14:07
Go back to petrol: would you? - islandman
I've never owned a diesel (have driven them tho') & had said that my next car would definately be one. It didn't turn out that way.
1st reason -- we've 4 cars in our family, all petrol and I know that sooner or later me or Mrs I would forget & fill up with unleaded and knowing Mrs I -- drive off!
2nd reason -- I've recently bought the car i'd promsed myself for some time --- BMW 3 series convertable. Having test driven both petrol & diesel the decision was easy, as a private low mileage driver ---- petrol. Even BMW admit that in the 'verts the diesels were really only introduced to appeal to company high mileage buyers. Undoubtably the torque & tractability of both the 320 & 330 diesels was phonemenal & coupled with the MPG both made a very good case.
Funny thing --- when I said to the BMW sales guy I was interested in diesel he almost down his nose & said 'What, sir - diesel in a convertible?' Why?
I could see what he meant when I drove a 330i --- silk on streroids with 85% of torque at 1500 revs & progressive power all the way up to 6000 revs (I took it to 5k) And just as importantly the sonerous soundtrack from the 6pot. Believe me in comparison the diesels sounded dead.
I think diesels in general are great --- powerful in real driving conditions and economical. But there are certain cars that dictate a petrol and I think there always will be.
Sorry I know this thread is about going back to petrol but I was nearly a dervman.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 18:37
Go back to petrol: would you? - GroovyMucker
Sorry I've come to this thread late.

Don't the arguments about its being the additional elements of the engine (turbo, intercooler &c) being the bits that fail apply to petrol engines, too?

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 19:28
Go back to petrol: would you? - jase1
Sorry I've come to this thread late.
Don't the arguments about its being the additional elements of the
engine (turbo, intercooler &c) being the bits that fail apply to
petrol engines, too?


Yes, but the typical standard petrol engine doesn't need these bits to return respectable performance on a typical "mundane" car.

IE a 1.4l NA petrol engine is more than sufficient to move a small, Corsa-sized car around with reasonable acceleration. A 1.4l NA diesel (SDi) wouldn't lift the skin off a rice pudding. The diesel needs the extra bits to be usable -- the extra torque being a useful side-effect that makes them nicer to drive to some drivers.

Looking at it the other way, a 2l turboed / intercooled petrol engine becomes a fire-spitting monster like an Impreza or Evo. A similar diesel engine merely delivers similar power to the 2l NA petrol, but with much more grunt so it can pull caravans or treat hills like they don't exist etc.

Horses for courses, but for the average shopping cart or workhorse commuter car the petrol solution is simpler, and hence cheaper to keep on the road long-term, than the modern CR diesel with all the bells and whistles.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 19:35
Go back to petrol: would you? - jase1
Sorry, I know that last post was stating the bleeding obvious to a large extent, but it does IMO highlight the basic problem -- people like diesels because of the driving experience, but that "driving experience" is mostly a function of the bells and whistles, which could equally be applied to a petrol and, in the petrol's case, would make that engine a damn sight more fun than the equivalent diesel.

The day they can make a NA diesel with the same power output as the same sized petrol, I'll be impressed. Until then, I'll stick to petrol thanks.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 19:53
Go back to petrol: would you? - bristolmotorspeedway {P}
My own personal petrol v diesel comparison - a 2000X 1.8 Mondeo Mk2 that I owned for over 5 years, and the 2.2 D4-D Avensis I have now:
Startup noise and cold idle - petrol wins
Refinement once moving - diesel
Torque - diesel
Power - diesel
Economy - diesel
Smoothness/willingness to rev - diesel
Service costs - doubt the Avensis will be as cheap to run as the Mondeo in the long run, but don't expect it to break the bank either.

For once I am not going to knock another manufacturer, but I have had extended runs in 2 other modern diesels, one was excellent and had petrol beating refinement and smoothness, the other was a bag of smoking spanners that made the 6 yr old Mondeo feel like a paragon of refinement afterwards.

In my opinion, a good diesel will always be preferable to a mediocre petrol engine, but a a good petrol engine will be better than a poor diesel.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 22:39
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
> Sorry, I know that last post was stating the bleeding obvious...

Not at all, Jase - it's actually a pretty good distillation of important points raised in this thread. You could add to it that some manufacturers seem to manage the bells and whistles to rather better effect than others, and that that's what tilts the balance towards either diesel or petrol in terms of what each maker does best.

One thing I've noticed in getting on for five years of diesel driving is that it's not quite as much fun as it used to be. (What follows will make me sound like a hooligan but bear with me!) When I was auditioning diesels in 2002, and when I first got my S60, I was just about the fastest thing on the road. Coming off a roundabout on a dual carriageway, or when an extra lane appeared on an uphill stretch of A-road, Mondeos, Lagunas and, most pleasingly, BMW 318s couldn't touch me. It meant that on a busy, fast road, I could identify the stretch of clear road ahead and be fairly sure of putting myself in it; my 2.0 non-turbo petrol Saab, much as I liked it, simply couldn't do that. Diesel, in other words, meant rapid, relaxed progress and the chance to make the most of what clear road there was.
It still does, but now that CR diesels have been in volume production for five or six years, and just about every largish car has 300 Nm or more on tap, my advantage is not what it was. I get past the line of trucks easily enough but there's still a compact executive in the mirror, determined to put his A4 TDI in front of me. I let him go, of course (you don't really think I'm a hooligan, do you?) but I used to so enjoy leaving them behind.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 30 Mar 2007 23:37
Go back to petrol: would you? - Micky
">and when I first got my S60, I was just about the fastest thing on the road.<"

S60? Fastest thing on the road? In comparison with what? A selection of skip lorries perhaps? Or a small gathering of Nissan Micras being driven quite slowly in the opposite direction?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 00:20
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
>S60? Fastest thing on the road? In comparison with what?

I suspect you're wilfully missing the point, Micky, but just in case, let me turn your question round and ask you to travel back in time to the summer of 2002 and tell me what was available in the world of mainstream cars - say up to about £22,000 - that would out-accelerate my S60 in the 30-70 real-road range. VW and Audi TDI 130s come close, but there weren't so many around then; I've driven a BMW 320d of that vintage and it felt slow by comparison; Saab and Volvo petrol turbos perhaps, but they're comparative rarities; Audi and BMW petrols would need six cylinders and cost much more; nothing with four doors, four (petrol) cylinders and the kind of badge likely to gain a fleet manager's approval could get close! What have I missed?

The CO2-based BIK rules were new that year, too, so company users were only just beginning to favour diesel for tax reasons. All in all, it was a good year to be choosing a new car!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 11:27
Go back to petrol: would you? - Micky
">nothing with four doors, four (petrol) cylinders and the kind of badge likely to gain a fleet manager's approval could get close! What have I missed?<"

Ah, all excuses appear now. Any further restrictions in mind? Perhaps 2002 Volvos only? Perhaps petrol cars with only three cylinders? I condemn racing on the public highway, the "winner" is generally the driver who takes the most risks with other peoples lives and limbs. But to make the point, take your S60 to Cadwell (or similar) and see how fast you really are.

But a new-in-2002, cheapo fleet-acceptable 4 door that will thoroughly trounce your deseael from 30 to 70? 3.0 French car of some description. Laguna perhaps? You'll watch it disappear into the distance because:

a) It has more power for similar mass

b) See a above

Or are you going add in a whingeing tone "... and there's no gear changing allowed"

Willful? Me? Probably.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 13:26
Go back to petrol: would you? - Brian Tryzers
I was wrong about you, Micky - you're not being wilful (single L);, you just don't get it. Never mind.

Who or what is Cadwell?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 1 Apr 2007 10:06
Go back to petrol: would you? - Micky
It's OK Villdebeast, I've decided that I am definitely willful and probably even wilful.

I don't get what?

">and when I first got my S60, I was just about the fastest thing on the road.<"

So all these years I've been meddling with kitcars and 'bikes in the search for ability to make good progress have been wasted. What I really need is a Volvo Daesel.

Cadwell is one of several venues where you can begin to explore the phenomenal power available from your S60 (just about the fastest thing on the road in 2002)

www.circuit-days.co.uk/event_details.php?venue_id=...6
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 00:28
Go back to petrol: would you? - jase1
Why do people always point at the Micra when referring to a slowmobile? It wasn't that underpowered, the 1.3 was fairly nippy ISTR.

If you want slow, the 1.9 SDi Octavia takes some beating. A perfect example of what a diesel is like without all the problematic fancy stuff (zzzzzzzzz....).
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 02:10
Go back to petrol: would you? - DP
willingness to rev - diesel


I agree with pretty much everything you said, apart from that above. This is the main area where diesels just cannot compete with petrols. 4,500 - 5,000 RPM is your lot (with power usually starting to tail off just after 4k. Most modern petrol engines are happy to spin to 6,000 RPM+ and still have the power curve climbing for the vast majority of it.

Cheers
DP.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 31 Mar 2007 08:18
Go back to petrol: would you? - bristolmotorspeedway {P}
>> willingness to rev - diesel
I agree with pretty much everything you said, apart from that
above. This is the main area where diesels just cannot compete
with petrols. 4,500 - 5,000 RPM is your lot (with power
usually starting to tail off just after 4k. Most modern petrol
engines are happy to spin to 6,000 RPM+ and still have
the power curve climbing for the vast majority of it.
Cheers
DP.

Totally take your point, the comparison I was making was valid purely for the 1.8 Zetec E versus the Avensis D4-D. Whilst the petrol had the higher redline, I rarely went near it - the engine was just not smooth enough to make it pleasant to rev. The D4-D simply hammers it for smoothness and willingness in the 2000-4500 rpm range.
But, other 2.0 twin cam japanese petrols I have driven in the past probably blow the D4-D away in this respect and I am sure many other petrols would too, the Ford was just a bit of a naff engine - reliable and tough yes, refined no :)


Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 2 Apr 2007 21:00
Go back to petrol: would you? - duncansand
>> willingness to rev - diesel

>This is the main area where diesels just cannot compete
with petrols. 4,500 - 5,000 RPM is your lot (with power
usually starting to tail off just after 4k. Most modern petrol
engines are happy to spin to 6,000 RPM+ and still have
the power curve climbing for the vast majority of it.


In a diesel you change gear at that point. No great loss. Of course, get an auto diesel (like that sublime Jag S-type 2.7D) and it's irrelevent - the motor just keeps going and the gear change is so smooth you don't notice.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 1 Apr 2007 10:33
Go back to petrol: would you? - Galad
My otherwise faultless Mazda 323 TD failed the new MOT smoke test in 2006 when it was first introduced in Northern Ireland; it failed because of a build up of soot in the exhaust system which, ironically, the examiner managed to clear after 6 attempts at maximum revs but not enough to pass the test. When I took it back to the Mazda dealer to complain (they had prepared the car for the MOT) they admitted that most dealers had been caught out by the new smoke test and were still awaiting delivery of the necessary test equipment similar to that in use at the MOT test centres. Of course I soon discovered that a crude Italian tune-up on the Motorway just before the test is probably sufficient to clear out excess soot which is exactly what I did yesterday when my car was up again for its MOT.

I waited patiently in line outside the test centre fairly confident that I would be able to fool the smoke test this time thanks to advice from helpful posts on the HJ website only to find that the smoke test has been suspended in Northern Ireland following incidents of examiners coming down with bronchial illnesses! Apparently a new emissions test is being introduced for diesels, no doubt another money spinning opportunity for garages. Anyone know what it is?

I will definitely be going back to petrol.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 1 Apr 2007 11:42
Go back to petrol: would you? - spikeyhead {p}
I'm sticking with diesels, mostly cos I do over 30k PA. However I usually have a second car for fun and have just started looking for one, torn between a Caterham 7 superlight R300, Radical SR3 or Aerial Atom I can't imagine any of those with a diesel engine!
--
I read often, only post occasionally
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 1 Apr 2007 13:03
Go back to petrol: would you? - guygamps
On the case of diesel vs petrol, the move towards diesels (which now account for such a large percentage of new car sales in UK) really took off when the government introduced tax on company cars based upon C02 ommissions - think that was about 1998/9. Yes diesels are low emitters of C02, but as anyone who has driven behind a modern VW/Audi when accelerating away from you testifies, they drop a load of other black sooty stuff out.

In France and Germany they were buying lower large quantities of diesels before UK dues to castly lower price of Derv. In Uk petrol was far more dominant until those tax chanegs.

I think there is a bit of a cover up at the moment about the horrible other particles diesels chuck out, while everyone focuses on C02. A few years ago, the BIG concern was CFCs and the Ozone layer, you could hardly pick up a broadsheet news paper without seeing yet another photo of the hole in the ozone layer getting bigger.... now the big story is C02 and greenhouse gasses. Don't get me wrong, I worry about the damage we are doing to our environment, but I do not think Diesel is the answer.

Last month I was in Tokyo, despite very heavy traffic, the skies are completely clear, and the air felt really clean and crisp, whereas london has a yellow haze over it visible from anywhere high up, as does Beijing, Shanghai, and many other cities. Why does Tokyo not... I asked a few people and the answer seems to be that all the taxis, most small - medium size commercial traffic, and even a lot of privately owned cars run on LPG. Taking diesel out of the taxis etc, cleaned the air up enormously. Other steps included the encouragement of a micro car sector with 600cc engines for city run around.

I do not think the case for diesel is as strong as people make it out to be, yes you burn less fuel, but it costs more to buy the car, more to fill the tank, and chucks out piles of god knows what.

Guy

Food for thought.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 1 Apr 2007 17:27
Go back to petrol: would you? - OldSkoOL
I agree guy, the other gases diesels pump out do deteriate the air quality and you wouldn't want to live in areas of constant pollution, it cant be good for you.

Some companies are making progress with this like toyota's latest d-cat diesel engines; from what i have read that seem more friendly but cutting down on emissions and also being relatively maintanence free.

www.toyotaegypt.com.eg/innovation/technology/engin...p


Whilst i have never owned a diesel car i am very seriously considering buying one. I loved the new auris t180, crazy amounts of power, 45mpg on average which i got driving it the past few days and very normal looking car too. Nothing crazy in its design some decribe as bland standing next to a new civic but i dont like trying to make a statement and i think the civic's design will have a short shelf-life. Toyota's have never let me down in the past, the new t180 diesels are a excellent blend of increidible pull and power delivery at any rev and great economy and they are so smooth and quiet - much better than the 2.0d engine, i can't see how any couldn't like an engine like that, petrol engines are feeble and need to be reved hard and faster engines are very thirsty and no good for my mid distance commutes.


But to answer the question, i think my heart is set on a nice punchy diesel at the moment, but i would buy a petrol car if it was as quick, economical and as quiet as this t180 diesel. Its whatever suits your needs, if i was going short distances i'd sell the t180 and buy a type-r :D




Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 2 Apr 2007 12:57
Go back to petrol: would you? - oldtoffee
I?ve switched back to a company car and back to petrol from diesel (4 of my last 5 were diesel) and I went through many of the thought processes very well expressed here. I decided what car I wanted (nearly new Octavia vRS estate) rather than what fuel I should burn (easier if the company is paying your 30,000 miles of business fuel costs) and then drove both diesel and petrol versions.

I plumped for the petrol because it is IMO a much sweeter drive because of its much better engine. I pay £20 a month more in BIK tax for the petrol and my 5,000 private miles a year might cost me £150 a year extra which to me is a small cost for the better car.

If Gordon Brown?s successor decides to clobber company car drivers hard then I?ll revert back to running my own car again which will most likely be a 3 to 5 year old diesel exec from the land of the rising sun provided the horror scare stories of CR diesels I read about don?t turn out true.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 2 Apr 2007 13:18
Go back to petrol: would you? - daveyjp
It's horses for courses, but at the moment diesel ticks my requirement boxes better than petrol.

I do 15-20,000 miles a year.

I need a family sized car so minimum capacity I'd consider is 1.8, but to get decent performance I would want a 2.0, so high road tax band.

Most of my journeys are urban, but I do quite frequent motorway runs, so decent urban mpg is important with power for comfortable motorway trips - 40 round town does me just fine, my last pterol car, a 1.8 Focus did 30 on a very good day, 25-28 was more usual.

My business mileage is based purely on engine capacity, so the more miles I get out of a gallon the better off I am.

I've just been in a colleague's S type 2.5 - beautiful drive, very comfortable and a great V6 soundtrack, but we used more than a gallon of fuel on our 20 mile trip in urban traffic.

At the moment I can't see a return to petrol for me.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 3 Apr 2007 10:08
Go back to petrol: would you? - Mad Maxy
After having driven petrol for 30 years I bought a Colf GT TDI (110); kept it for 3 years. Then had an Audi A4 2.0 FSI (would have preferred diesel but it was the best option at the time) and have just switched to BMW 320d. Diesel seems more interesting after bland petrol - better noise, love the shove.

However, for my driving fun car I can't imagine driving diesel after a Porsche 911 (6 cylinders, air-cooled, gorgeous!) and the current supercharged Cooper S (plenty of low-down shove, great noise including supercharger whine).

But other than in such characterful cars, diesel makes the modern blandbox bearable.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Tue 3 Apr 2007 12:04
Go back to petrol: would you? - David Horn
Drove a 2.0 petrol Accord auto (2001) to Leeds last night. Initial impressions were that it was surprisingly sprightly up to about 40mph, but after that my 10 year old diesel had a significant advantage. Accelerating from 70 - 80mph promptly required a kickdown from the autobox, whereas on my diesel that's smack in the middle of the turbo range and it pulls like a train.

Very quiet though. Oh, and it drank fuel.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link

We give you the low down on how to save on insurance, little-known tricks and tips, what insurance groups mean and how to use insurance aggregators to beat insurers.

Insurance group finder and how to save on insurance

If you cover no more than 100 miles per day and have easy access to a charging point at home or work, then an EV is ideal for you.

Is an electric car right for me?