Is Diesel now a waste of time?

vectra

unkel wrote: »

but you don't seem to be taking into account depreciation?

Bought the Mondeo and kept it for over 2 years.
Clocked up only 12k on it while I had it and without a shadow of a doubt it was cleaner when I traded it in than when I bought it.
Depreciation ? :rolleyes:

I actually only had it for 126 weeks.
Paid €16 k for it.

Got €7.6k for it as a trade in which we all know is not what I actually got for it.

Do the maths and tell me which I stand to lose most cash on ?

Zube

vectra wrote: »

Do the maths and tell me which I stand to lose most cash on ?

You lost €8400 in 126 weeks = €66 per week, but you already lost that. It wasn't losing €66 a week when you traded it, more like the €20 Unkel quoted.

SEAT cordoba 80bhp diesel is €18K, you'll lose €9K over 3 years, = €57 a week. Less the €20 the Mondeo was dropping, less the €25 fuel/tax/insurance saving, you're getting a new car for €12 a week, assuming you didn't borrow the cash to change.

unkel

Zube wrote: »

but you already lost that.

Yep that was exactly my point

vectra

Zube wrote: »

You lost €8400 in 126 weeks = €66 per week, but you already lost that. It wasn't losing €66 a week when you traded it, more like the €20 Unkel quoted.

SEAT cordoba 80bhp diesel is €18K, you'll lose €9K over 3 years, = €57 a week. Less the €20 the Mondeo was dropping, less the €25 fuel/tax/insurance saving, you're getting a new car for €12 a week, assuming you didn't borrow the cash to change.

Confused me like a car salesman would

But makes me feel better saying i have a new car for €12 per week :cool:

dizzydiesel

In short, diesel is still the way to go....at least until they manage to get a hybrid with proper performance and at a realistic price.

TDI engines (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, and now BMW) are really clean versus their performance. Most can get 50-60mpg.....depending on the model (ie the heavier the car the less mileage)...audi A6 is a heavy thing!

The problem is that these cars are expensive too, so you need to weigh up the depreciation of one of these cars verses an older model deisel that doesn't have such good fuel ecomeny.

Obviously, the more mileage you cover in a year, the more you will save. Even if you do little milegage, your fuel consumption is still going to be less.

Before July, annual road tax for typical diesel cars (1.9TDI or 2.0TD) was approx €500.....and this will continue for used cars registered before July 2008. But now, new cars, or imported cars that have low C02 emmisions are taxed at the new VRT bands.
This means that clean diesel cars (manual rather than auto) will be in favorable tax bands. You can import a used BMW 3 series 2.0TD and pay only 16% VRT....and annual road tax of €150. This is cheaper than old road tax for a 1.2l petrol car (pre-July2008).....and will get better fuel consumption also.

So get out there and buy a good diesel....forget petrol.....even if prices of deisel are 5c per litre more expensive.........it doesn't come close.

r3nu4l

dizzydiesel wrote: »

So get out there and buy a good diesel....forget petrol.....even if prices of deisel are 5c per litre more expensive.........it doesn't come close.

Unless you live in the UK where diesel prices are a full 12-13 pence per litre more than petrol!

Diesel is currently around £1.32.9 in most of East Anglia, compared with £1.19.9 for petrol).

You will need to recalculate properly and be doing a huge number of miles (like I do) for diesel to be the better option.

dizzydiesel

Time to do the homework on calculations if you do small mileage.......
In the UK with such a difference in fuel prices, more calculations on consumption would need to be done.
However, majority of diesels will get 40%-60% better fuel econemy....(ignoring the cost of the vehicle) and in Ireland with the VRT and road tax based on C02 the fuel consumptions is the only other comparable variable. So even a 20% difference in diesel price vs petrol will not bridge to 40-60% superior fuel consumption.

Of course, my VRT calculations are only relavent to the new VRT Irish market....and/or importing UK cars.

Marcus.Aurelius

from an average diesel doing around 50 mpg, versus a petrol doing 35 mpg, diesel would have to cost 42% more before you would be better off with the petrol.

Which is not the case in the UK or here.

vectra

Chief Admiral wrote: »

from an average diesel doing around 50 mpg, versus a petrol doing 35 mpg, diesel would have to cost 42% more before you would be better off with the petrol.

Which is not the case in the UK or here.

Rubbish.

I had Petrol and was robbed from running to the pumps as i do mainly Town Driving.
Since I changed to diesel I now only go to the pumps every few weeks.
I no longer have to check how much is in the tank before going anywhere.
Sometimes i even forget where the local petrol station is

Matt Simis

vectra wrote: »

Rubbish.

I had Petrol and was robbed from running to the pumps as i do mainly Town Driving.
Since I changed to diesel I now only go to the pumps every few weeks.
I no longer have to check how much is in the tank before going anywhere.
Sometimes i even forget where the local petrol station is

Think you got what he said backwards!

Marcus.Aurelius

vectra wrote: »

Rubbish.

I think you misread my post there vectra :pac:

dizzydiesel

Vectra....you are right.
I notice that when sitting in traffic in a petrol car.....tends to gulp the fuel anyway.

Diesel when sitting in traffic takes a sip every so often.

Town driving (starting stopping contineously) is the closest match between petrol and diesel.

Diesel vs Petrol on motorway.....diesel wins by a mile.
Diesel vs Petrol in traffic sitting......diesel wins by a mile.
Diesel vs Petrol starting/stopping contineously at slow speeds 30mph.....diesel still wins, but by a closer margin.

dizzydiesel

Chief Admiral wrote: »

I think you misread my post there vectra :pac:

Guys..........you are both on the same side.

Saruman

Diesel is still better and i would still buy one.. at least until the Hydrogen cars come out.
Anyone see the GM one they tested on Top gear a while back? It generates enough power from seawater to power a street of houses. And you can switch the steering wheel around depending on how you feel and what country you are in.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire.htm

vectra

Chief Admiral wrote: »

I think you misread my post there vectra :pac:

oops. :P

Keano

Diesel it is so for my next car.

E92

vectra wrote: »

Rubbish.

I had Petrol and was robbed from running to the pumps as i do mainly Town Driving.
Since I changed to diesel I now only go to the pumps every few weeks.
I no longer have to check how much is in the tank before going anywhere.
Sometimes i even forget where the local petrol station is

You had a 1.8 Mondeo, and now you have a 1.4 Cordoba, and you think that that's a fair comparison to make for petrol versus diesel?

@Dizzydiesel: what planet are you on with your 40-60% better economy from diesel? Maybe if you use comparisons like vectra comparing a supermini with a family saloon you'll get 40-60% but not if you make vaslid comparisons.

They're at most 30-40% more efficient than petrol; actually if we take the most modern of each type, the Audi A4 which got a brand new petrol and diesel in it this year, we find that the 2.0 petrol averages 43.5 mpg, while the diesel does 53.3 mpg. That means it is the grand total of 22.5% better on juice.

Another example would be the BMW 530i and the 530d, which also have very modern engines. The 530i auto does 37.7 mpg, versus the 42.8 mpg of the 530d. That makes the diesel the grand total of just 13.5% more economical. In other words if diesel was 10% dearer then it would hardly be any cheaper to run a 530d over a 530i, and you'd be losing out on 41 bhp, petrol noise and refinement as well as a 7,000 rpm rev limiter every time you drive one too.

Btw, both cars I mentioned have considerably more power in petrol application, as well as far less particulates and Nitrous Oxide emissions. But I suppose a bit like the hybrid fanboys who ignore all the pollution caused by making a hybrid and disposing of one when they hit the scrapheap, that doesn't count as "pollution" at all, does it?

I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that they are better to drive than petrols. If anything, I find them a bit of a pain in town to drive because of all that torque at low revs. I don't like the way they are still no match for petrol in terms of smoothness, the way they hate going anywhere near 4,000 rpm let alone beyond that, the fact that they're still noisier and nowhere near as good sounding as petrols, the fact they don't have the finesse and joie de vivre of petrol on the road, I don't like the way they're considered to be more environmentally friendly because the EU allows them to pollute far more Nitrous Oxide than petrols.

They cost more(VRT regs effectively subsidise this increased cost), they pollute 13% more CO2 per litre burned than petrol(2.65 kg of CO2 per litre burned of diesel vs 2.37 kg per litre burned of petrol) which means that of course it should be dearer than petrol on the polluter pays principle, they are bad for our health, they weigh more, they smell more, they are noisier, not as smooth, lack enthusiasm for revs, don't have anything like the linear power delivery of a petrol, they are no faster than petrols despite the delusions of diesel owners because what you do with a petrol is you rev it beyond 4,000 and go up to 6,000 rpm or even the rev limiter and then we'll see how diesel torque is getting on:D.

Btw, we have a week old 520d at home(and its engine is very good, if unrefined for the size and type of car, for a diesel) and I still prefer the straight 6 petrol engine in my E34 despite being roughly half as economical and having 27 less bhp.

Johnny Utah

No, but these never-ending debates on diesel v petrol are.

Cuauhtemoc

they pollute 13% more CO2 per litre burned than petrol(2.65 kg of CO2 per litre burned of diesel vs 2.37 kg per litre burned of petrol) which means that of course it should be dearer than petrol on the polluter pays principle

Going by your own figures from earlier in the thread though

They're at most 30-40% more efficient than petrol; actually if we take the most modern of each type, the Audi A4 which got a brand new petrol and diesel in it this year, we find that the 2.0 petrol averages 43.5 mpg, while the diesel does 53.3 mpg. That means it is the grand total of 22.5% better on juice.

Or 13.5 % for that bmw example.

If we go by the polluter pays principle i'd still generally be emitting less CO2 per kilometer travelled.
Of course my maths are probably dodgy


C.

Edit: In case you hadn't guessed i drive a 18 month old 1.9 diesel with the higher road tax Is that depreciation i smell???

vectra

E92 wrote: »

You had a 1.8 Mondeo, and now you have a 1.4 Cordoba, and you think that that's a fair comparison to make for petrol versus diesel?

So,
Do you think a 1.6 Petrol Mondeo would be more economical than a 1.8 Petrol Mondeo doing similar driving ?:rolleyes:

WHITE_P

Ford don't seem to think so, since they have already built one million diesel units at their Dagenham plant and have taken on 500 new staff in order to maintain production levels.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/05/16/ford-uk-adds-production-line-for-two-new-low-carbon-diesel-engin/

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=ford+build+one+million+diesels+engines+at+dagenham+plant&spell=1

dizzydiesel

E92 wrote: »

You had a 1.8 Mondeo, and now you have a 1.4 Cordoba, and you think that that's a fair comparison to make for petrol versus diesel?

@Dizzydiesel: what planet are you on with your 40-60% better economy from diesel? Maybe if you use comparisons like vectra comparing a supermini with a family saloon you'll get 40-60% but not if you make vaslid comparisons.

They're at most 30-40% more efficient than petrol; actually if we take the most modern of each type, the Audi A4 which got a brand new petrol and diesel in it this year, we find that the 2.0 petrol averages 43.5 mpg, while the diesel does 53.3 mpg. That means it is the grand total of 22.5% better on juice.

Another example would be the BMW 530i and the 530d, which also have very modern engines. The 530i auto does 37.7 mpg, versus the 42.8 mpg of the 530d. That makes the diesel the grand total of just 13.5% more economical. In other words if diesel was 10% dearer then it would hardly be any cheaper to run a 530d over a 530i, and you'd be losing out on 41 bhp, petrol noise and refinement as well as a 7,000 rpm rev limiter every time you drive one too.

Btw, both cars I mentioned have considerably more power in petrol application, as well as far less particulates and Nitrous Oxide emissions. But I suppose a bit like the hybrid fanboys who ignore all the pollution caused by making a hybrid and disposing of one when they hit the scrapheap, that doesn't count as "pollution" at all, does it?

I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that they are better to drive than petrols. If anything, I find them a bit of a pain in town to drive because of all that torque at low revs. I don't like the way they are still no match for petrol in terms of smoothness, the way they hate going anywhere near 4,000 rpm let alone beyond that, the fact that they're still noisier and nowhere near as good sounding as petrols, the fact they don't have the finesse and joie de vivre of petrol on the road, I don't like the way they're considered to be more environmentally friendly because the EU allows them to pollute far more Nitrous Oxide than petrols.

They cost more(VRT regs effectively subsidise this increased cost), they pollute 13% more CO2 per litre burned than petrol(2.65 kg of CO2 per litre burned of diesel vs 2.37 kg per litre burned of petrol) which means that of course it should be dearer than petrol on the polluter pays principle, they are bad for our health, they weigh more, they smell more, they are noisier, not as smooth, lack enthusiasm for revs, don't have anything like the linear power delivery of a petrol, they are no faster than petrols despite the delusions of diesel owners because what you do with a petrol is you rev it beyond 4,000 and go up to 6,000 rpm or even the rev limiter and then we'll see how diesel torque is getting on:D.

Btw, we have a week old 520d at home(and its engine is very good, if unrefined for the size and type of car, for a diesel) and I still prefer the straight 6 petrol engine in my E34 despite being roughly half as economical and having 27 less bhp.

You try getting 37.7 mpg in the petrol BMW cruising at 80mph....not going to happen. The diesel will easy get 50-55mpg at this speed.....even possible to get 60 (I can average 60mpg easy)

37.7mpg + 60% is 60mpg
37.7 *1.6 = 60mpg
This proves my point that diesels are 40-60% more efficient.

Ok, you have more power in the petrol, but the arguement is about econemy. The PD diesels are quiet now too. Fun revving to 7000 is for children in their Starlets.
It's all about effortless power from a torque filled diesel.

Not to mention the resale cost....the diesel holds value. Mine has 150k miles on the clock and still pulls like crazy. The engine has never had any work.....oil changed every 10k and a new belt and water pump at 60k and 120k. I have a feeling that the engine will outlive the chassis.

JHMEG

Petrol is better.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

But I suppose a bit like the hybrid fanboys who ignore all the pollution caused by making a hybrid and disposing of one when they hit the scrapheap, that doesn't count as "pollution" at all, does it?

Any figures on this? I read recently an A6 is more polluting to make than a Prius.

vectra

E92 wrote: »

Another example would be the BMW 530i and the 530d, which also have very modern engines. The 530i auto does 37.7 mpg, versus the 42.8 mpg of the 530d. That makes the diesel the grand total of just 13.5% more economical. In other words if diesel was 10% dearer then it would hardly be any cheaper to run a 530d over a 530i, and you'd be losing out on 41 bhp, petrol noise and refinement as well as a 7,000 rpm rev limiter every time you drive one too.

So at 7k rpm your petrol engine would be as economical as the Diesel at 4k rpm ?

I think NOT :rolleyes:

Take this car for example
CAR: Skoda Octavia vRS TDI
CO2 EMISSIONS: 157g/km
PERFORMANCE: Max Speed 140mph / 0-60mph 8.2s
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (combined) 48.2mpg

CAR: Skoda Octavia 2.0T vRS
CO2 EMISSIONS: 190g/km
PERFORMANCE: Max Speed 149mph / 0-60mph 7s
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (combined) 35.8mpg

Are you telling us ( Or simply trying to,
That if both of those cars were to be "driven on and enjoyed" :rolleyes:

That the difference in economy would stay at the difference it is at on the BEST listing above?

dizzydiesel

JHMEG wrote: »

Any figures on this? I read recently an A6 is more polluting to make than a Prius.

Please please please don't talk about the Prius.

A6 petrol or A6 diesel both are head and shoulders above any hybrid in the near future. I'm not concerned about the pollutants involved in the manufacturing of the car. Only concerned about the performance and econamical aspect.y
This C02 global warming theory has turned the world upside down.

The only pollutant that we should be concerned about is the bull talk of green muppets. It's dangerous and it's destroying us.

Prius is pants.

JHMEG

dizzydiesel wrote: »

Please please please don't talk about the Prius.

A6 petrol or A6 diesel both are head and shoulders above any hybrid in the near future

What the Prius does best it does a helluva lot better than any A6, now or in the near future.

dizzydiesel

JHMEG wrote: »

What the Prius does best it does a helluva lot better than any A6, now or in the near future.

Sorry.....after your last comment, I can no longer take this argument seriously.

JHMEG

dizzydiesel wrote: »

Sorry.....after your last comment, I can no longer take this argument seriously.

Grand. Well you were coming up with a few new boards myths there anyway.

moleyC

vectra wrote: »

So at 7k rpm your petrol engine would be as economical as the Diesel at 4k rpm ?

I think NOT :rolleyes:

Take this car for example
CAR: Skoda Octavia vRS TDI
CO2 EMISSIONS: 157g/km
PERFORMANCE: Max Speed 140mph / 0-60mph 8.2s
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (combined) 48.2mpg

CAR: Skoda Octavia 2.0T vRS
CO2 EMISSIONS: 190g/km
PERFORMANCE: Max Speed 149mph / 0-60mph 7s
FUEL CONSUMPTION: (combined) 35.8mpg

Are you telling us ( Or simply trying to,
That if both of those cars were to be "driven on and enjoyed" :rolleyes:

That the difference in economy would stay at the difference it is at on the BEST listing above?

The difference no, but the ratio of the emissions would, as you are using both at their maximum revs/power output.