|
For under £3k, most VW stock will have very high milers. It's not just the engine that matter, cars with 150,000 miles start to get 'tired'.
|
|
|
|
This is not aimed at the OP, and apologies for thread drift, but why do people have this obsession that diesels (due to their better 'headline' fuel economy) are always good options at at high mileages? Buy a cheap, old high mileage diesel & any major engine problem probably means big bills - wiping out any fuel 'saving', maybe even making repair economic unviable.
Of course older diesels don't always break down & not all reapirs render then scrap; but part of the 'art' of running older cars must be their ease/cost of repair/servicing - and the subtext here is simplicity. I'm not sure any type of highly stressed, forced induction engine with (later) complicated emissions controls (and or DMFs) fits the bill.
The OP is looking for an older '1.4' diesel.. why not consider a cheaper, understressed non-turbo 1.6 petrol for example? Many people tend to thrash smaller diesels to extract as much of the limited BHP available anyway - and even diesels aren't immune to the laws of physics in that regard, vis-s-vis their specific consumption with that usage. I'm also pretty sure that a more efficient driving style can often make up any notional difference in specific fuel consumption between smaller diesel & petrol engined cars.
"Old diesels, so often.. not the answer"
|
|
You can transfer 'efficient driving styles' over to diesels. The fact of the matter is that diesels are about 20-25% more efficient than petrols. Chuck in the ~10% extra free at the pump and you're looking at 30-35% better economy than a comparably powered petrol.
You won't emulate diesel mileage simply by reading the road ahead and changing gear early!
Every single heavy duty vehicle is a diesel. Common rail, turbos, particulate traps, ad blue etc etc have done nothing to alter diesel's dominance in this sector.
For motorway driving, the DPF, DMF, and turbo shouldn't be having any problems whatsoever.
That said, a lot of car drivers are in the light end of light duty-and diesel probably isn't the best choice for them.
|
|
read on this site in the past that if your traveling less than 15k per year a petrol is often cheaper to run...
.
but would have thought if your milage is pretty low a run of the mill 1.4 zetec fiesta would be worth thinking about. Over 45mpg, parts dealer on every corner, and easy to sell on in a few years. Also finding a reasonable milage example should be easy enough..
all this talk of 150k diesels... ok ok the engines are meant!!! to be strong,,but what about all the day to day parts,,,they still have rubber bushes, dampers, stability control, electric this and that..turbo/ intercooler, ,,,,all of which still fall apart...my thinking is you'll find a fresher (newer/low milage) example of a petrol car than a diesel, and it might well be cheaper to run in the long term....
the main dealers near me all charge more than £100/hr labour rate (£124 for audi for example) so even a suspension bush costing a few pounds will soon become a silly bill for labour/vat.....
just my thoughts to put a different spin on things.
|
|
|
|
The older the diesel the more the jeopardy in terms of potential repair cost - not to mention servicing cost - that has to be factored into the headline efficiency advantage & too often it's not, especially as you say for light usage/mlieage applications.
Not sure what the "..~10% extra free at the pump.." refers to - diesel is usally more expensive by 4-8% where I live.
Effiicient driving style - of course tranferable to a diesel (as I do), but it was an example of an active economy measure, rather than relying on passive fuel efficiency - it was a suggestion to offset that when buying a petrol engined car.
All added complexity adds increased risk of failure, all things being equal. Turbo diesel vehicles with 'mitigation' technologies are just that. Those risks increase with age & when they happen are not cheap, or sometimes even feasible, to fix.
|
|
According to petrol prices.com the average price for petrol is £1.35/litre and £1.40/litre for diesel. so diesel is ~3.7% more expensive-which diesel owners moan about. But diesel is denser than petrol so a gallon of diesel has about 10% more energy than a gallon of petrol. Since the duty on petrol and diesel is the same, you've got about 10% extra free.
The complexity argument is a bit thin. Electronic fuel injection is way more reliable than carburettors. V8s have twice as many parts as 4 cylinders-but they're not twice as likely to suffer component failure! Ditto 4 valve vs 2 valve, DOHC vs SOHC etc etc.
Petrols require fairly sophisticated fuel injection metering for their catalytic converter to work properly-yet they don't suffer many failures.
Turbos are very simple devices and if they don't suffer from lack of cooling, lubrication or overspeeding, they seldom fail.
Intercoolers are just air-to-air radiators-no moving parts.
I think the likelihood of failure has a lot to do with how stressed a component is. I recommended a car with a proven diesel engine, a simple waste gate turbo, no intercooler, no DPF, and a very low specfic output. I think it has a high chance of being reliable.
Edited by unthrottled on 28/07/2011 at 14:24
|
|
|
|
I'm not convinced that we should be considering a 2004/2005 engine "old" just yet. OK, so it's not fresh from the factory, but 10+ yr old cars are still for sale on eBay/Autotrader and these still sell well if people's budgets only strecth that far.
Some engines can cope with the high miles also. Not all diesels are made for "million miles" but many can continue for a long time provided it is looked after.
It also helps when evalusting costs if you intend to take the car to a dealership or if you have a reputable independant instead. An independant is usually around 50% cheaper with regards to labour costs, and a good Mobile Mechanic can help you save a little more.
|
|
It's not so much the engine as the clutch, suspension and steering systems. They do get worn with age-whereas an engine will often barely wear at all. Buying a used car is really about avoiding the bottom 10% of lemons rather than trying to pick one of the best!
I just couldn't stomach paying circa £4k for an eight year old Audi-even if it does have the legendary 130PD engine.
|
|
But you can get the "legendary" 130PD engine (AWX) in a Skoda for a lot less money.
I bought one - so far, very good indeed (when kept away from the dealers).
659.
|
|
Ah 659!
Off topic, but how's your knowledge of the 2008 105 PD BXE/BLS engine?
|
|
Sorry, but I rather lost interest in the PD engine when the bean counter (B-C) division of VAG wrecked it. I bought the last version which "worked".
There's almost a cycle with VAG products - a new innovation is usually carefully engineered in partnership with a major supplier - Bosch in the case of the PD. It was a ground breaking engine with unrivalled thermal efficiency, even now.
Bosch are not a cheap supplier and their solenoid actuated unit injectors are very expensive, so the B-C division is despatched to investigate in-house production of piezo actuated unit injectors in collaboration with Siemens. Lacking the extensive diesel experience of Bosch, an alternative supplier is very likely indeed to make fundamental errors and wreck the product.
The Teves Mk 60 brake controller went the same way, as did the tandem pumps on the original PD engines when VAG went to LuK and ended up with units which spilled diesel fuel onto the road for others to encounter.
All of these little ventures into cheapskate territotry have cost VAG recalls and in some cases may have endangered the lives of their customers or other road users.
I see very little evidence from VAG of concern, prompt action or a determination not to do it again. Rather, they have tried every means available to them to hide behind "dealer servicing" (how does servicing affect electrical breakdown of unit injectors?) and to avoid compensating their customers for the supply of goods which are unsuitable for purpose.
659.
Edited by 659FBE on 28/07/2011 at 18:02
|
|
I would agree with all that-especially the thermal efficiency bit-peak bsfc of under 200g/KWhr. Staggering for a sub 2 litre engine.
VW have an awful reputation in the US for their cheapskate antics-and it looks like the rot has spread. Very short sighted.
Even with the knowledge of the Siemans injector issue, I still recommended the PD to the parents. The absence of a HP fuel pump appeals to me. That said, the consumption thus far has been less than stellar. Which is why I was asking if you knew much about it.
|
|
My 1998 Skoda Octaivia 1.9 TDi, 90 bhp, bought at 94,000 miles, and now with 206,000 has had no diesel engine associated repairs. It's serviced by an independent garage.
|
|
659 - I would love to know what you will buy when your Superb finally wears out, as the current VAG products don't seem to come up to your high standards :) Maybe you will be forced to buy a common rail diesel (shock, horror) or more likely you will shoehorn in that spare AWX engine sitting in the shed.
This thread has been a good excuse for all the usual diesel moans, shame that the OP has vanished off the face of the earth !!
|
|
Everyone loves a cathartic diesel moan! In my defence, in between the diesel moans, I did make a recommendation that fitted the criteria.
|
|
What about a Mitsubishi Colt? You can get a 1.5L diesel 54 plate for around the £3k mark (although there are a lot more petrol examples than diesels).
|
|
Most of you live on a planet where garages are full of broken diesles. It's got to be a different one from this.
|
|
madf, I wonder if those who go on about broken diesels have actually owned one. I think quite a few hewre have new or nearly new diesels. I'm sure 659FBE is probably the best on this forum, for real world knowledge for diesels of any age
|
|
|
|
|
|
