I don't do enough miles to drive a diesel car?

*Kol*

If you have a longish motorway commute towards Dublin for example, and then you sit in traffic for an hour, does the DPF cool down? Or is the motorway commute sufficient to keep it from getting blocked, so that the time spent in traffic has no effect?

ABC101

*Kol* wrote: »

If you have a longish motorway commute towards Dublin for example, and then you sit in traffic for an hour, does the DPF cool down? Or is the motorway commute sufficient to keep it from getting blocked, so that the time spent in traffic has no effect?

That would be correct, but any soot build up during the one hour inbound traffic jam would be burnt off during the outbound return commute that evening.

Some cars can do a forced regeneration of the DPF unit even when parked, it depends etc.

I'm not anti diesel, but like most things in life it's horses for courses.

Have a read of this article by Jon Quirk editor of auto trader

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2332107/Petrol-vs-diesel-cars-Drivers-warned-diesel-filter-trap.html

Also note they quote some DPF repairs can run up to 3000 pounds sterling.

Special Circumstances

ABC101 wrote: »

That would be correct, but any soot build up during the one hour inbound traffic jam would be burnt off during the outbound return commute that evening.

Some cars can do a forced regeneration of the DPF unit even when parked, it depends etc.

I'm not anti diesel, but like most things in life it's horses for courses.

Have a read of this article by Jon Quirk editor of auto trader

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2332107/Petrol-vs-diesel-cars-Drivers-warned-diesel-filter-trap.html

Also note they quote some DPF repairs can run up to 3000 pounds sterling.

In reality though that figure is not a worry for people. Nobody nobody pays that much to have DPF functionality restored. It's not like the NCT fails for PM emissions! Or anything beyond the crudest test of exhaust smoke! Once one golden sample passes a contrived test in the lab then diesel cars can spit out whatever they want forever more really. "Green policy is working" as their spokesman said when the car market changed to 70%+ diesel.

Offaly Exile

Offaly Exile wrote: »

I'm doing about 10/11,000 miles annually mostly rural so I am coming around to thinking I need a petrol and not a diesel when I finally get around to changing.

The Toyota Auris diesel has a good reputation but what about the petrol model, take this as an example http://www.usedcarsni.com/2013-Toyota-Auris-SPORT-VALVEMATIC-166748720

Would this be a reliable type of car ?

11k miles easily justifies a diesel.

As another poster said people go crazy in here, for a start it makes no difference how little miles you do per year it's the type of miles and even if you do a lot of short trips just give the car a good blast every now and then and it should be no problem.

People forget that even if you do small mileage every year you will save a lot of money in diesel compared to the equivalent petrol model as you will be getting near twice the mpg and it's cheaper at the pump.

ABC101

Special Circumstances wrote: »

In reality though that figure is not a worry for people. Nobody nobody pays that much to have DPF functionality restored. It's not like the NCT fails for PM emissions! Or anything beyond the crudest test of exhaust smoke! Once one golden sample passes a contrived test in the lab then diesel cars can spit out whatever they want forever more really. "Green policy is working" as their spokesman said when the car market changed to 70%+ diesel.

The Green Party like most political parties would not understand engineering / technology very well. Like the majority of politicians they work hard and have good intentions, but the end result is sub standard.

The EU emission rules are becoming stricter, article in today's independent that Renault believe that diesels will be uneconomical to sell in the near future regardless of what the Irish NCT tests for or not.

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/vw-emissions-scandal-could-force-renault-to-phase-out-diesel-engines-35039095.html

The auto trader link I posted above quoted 1000 pounds for a Fiat 500 DPF filter repair / replacement.

Perhaps nobody in Ireland has ever paid such money as some posters are claiming on here, but I doubt that's the case, however the person who started this thread has mentioned hefty repair bills, including blocked DPF units.

However if the EU continues to narrow the emission limits of ICE's then petrol engines will come under threat too.

As the EU bureaucrats focus on target fixation of emissions we may all go back to driving the back half of a Ford Angelia being towed by a donkey!

Or else some form of hybrid / EV car.

Sam Russell

I am thinking of buying a new VW Tiguan. It is only available in bottom spec in petrol. Not just that, but they do not have any petrols - they only have diesels.

It appears to be the same with other similar models in other VAG cars.

What to do? Do not want an Opel, or Toyota, or French, or Italian, or ......

Looking at a new bicycle now.

ABC101

Zane Wailing Wall wrote: »

11k miles easily justifies a diesel.

As another poster said people go crazy in here, for a start it makes no difference how little miles you do per year it's the type of miles and even if you do a lot of short trips just give the car a good blast every now and then and it should be no problem.

People forget that even if you do small mileage every year you will save a lot of money in diesel compared to the equivalent petrol model as you will be getting near twice the mpg and it's cheaper at the pump.

May not be cheaper at the pump for much longer, recent articles in Irish media suggest a tax hike on the price of diesel may be on the cards, with price parity with petrol in 5 years time.

But you are correct in stating it is the type of miles one drives which is important.

And no that's not me being crazy😀!!

zl1whqvjs75cdy

The price of filling the car at the pump will be the least of our worries if they up the price of diesel. Everything will go up in price.

Am I Evil?

Facing this problem now myself. I work out of Ireland so am only back for the weekends - spins up and down to the airport and a bit of weekend fun doesn't exactly warrant a diesel (I'll be up to my eyes in repair bills by the sounds of it)

Every petrol car post 2008 seems to be a 1 or 1.2 litre :rolleyes:

ABC101

Am I Evil? wrote: »

Facing this problem now myself. I work out of Ireland so am only back for the weekends - spins up and down to the airport and a bit of weekend fun doesn't exactly warrant a diesel (I'll be up to my eyes in repair bills by the sounds of it)

Every petrol car post 2008 seems to be a 1 or 1.2 litre :rolleyes:

Well you could always get a Golf R, 285 BHP and only 570 ( I think) road tax.

Or a 80BHP Renault Clio 1.2.... for 270 road tax.

In fairness great strides in engine outputs have been made over the last 10 years. Recent article commenting about a
3 cylinder 1 lt petrol almost producing the same power as a 10 year old 4 cylinder 2lt design.

Diesel won't die, it will always be there for buses / trucks / trains / plant equipment and of course be more suitable for certain car journeys.

unkel

Am I Evil? wrote: »

Every petrol car post 2008 seems to be a 1 or 1.2 litre :rolleyes:

Had a look at the current model BMW 5-series. Made from 2010-2017

Not a single petrol one for sale in this country :rolleyes:

ABC101

unkel wrote: »

Am I Evil? wrote: »

Every petrol car post 2008 seems to be a 1 or 1.2 litre :rolleyes:

Had a look at the current model BMW 5-series. Made from 2010-2017

Not a single petrol one for sale in this country :rolleyes:

A petrol 520 might be untaxable in Ireland. Some petrol cars now are special order only. One example was the Subaru Outback 2.5 lt, 170 odd bhp. More suited to towing rather than performance. Taxed out of existence since 2008. But you can get a Forester with 150 bhp petrol and it will approach 40mpg and the tax is 390 or 570 (I think).
I don't think there were any Subaru WRX's or STI's sold after 2008 as nobody in their right mind would be wanting to pay 2K + annual road tax.
There are some VW / Skoda 2lt high performance petrol engines around, but not many. It is going to take some time for things to rebalance.

Sam Russell

unkel wrote: »

Had a look at the current model BMW 5-series. Made from 2010-2017

Not a single petrol one for sale in this country :rolleyes:

Put a search into Donedeal for over €20,000 year 2015 or 2016.

680 petrols and 6,440 diesels.

So about 90% of the market id diesel for recent high price cars.

unkel

ABC101 wrote: »

A petrol 520 might be untaxable in Ireland. Some petrol cars now are special order only. One example was the Subaru Outback 2.5 lt, 170 odd bhp. More suited to towing rather than performance. Taxed out of existence since 2008.

BMW <> Subaru

Those flat 4 Subaru engines were ancient and dirty. Even the 2l was maximum tax on the new system, so Subaru just stopped offering them for sale here as they rightly reckoned nobody would buy them

BMW have very clean petrol engines that are relatively cheap to tax. I.e. a BMW 535i F10 auto with a 3 litre 6 cylinder engine with two turbos and over 300BHP is only €750 to tax on the new system. Would suit me perfectly.

Special Circumstances

unkel wrote: »

BMW <> Subaru

Those flat 4 Subaru engines were ancient and dirty. Even the 2l was maximum tax on the new system, so Subaru just stopped offering them for sale here as they rightly reckoned nobody would buy them

BMW have very clean petrol engines that are relatively cheap to tax. I.e. a BMW 535i F10 auto with a 3 litre 6 cylinder engine with two turbos and over 300BHP is only €750 to tax on the new system. Would suit me perfectly.

The forester qualifies as a pzev vehicle in california. Each when people believed vw their diesels didn't qualify as partial zero emissions vehicles.

ABC101

unkel wrote: »

BMW <> Subaru
BMW have very clean petrol engines that are relatively cheap to tax. I.e. a BMW 535i F10 auto with a 3 litre 6 cylinder engine with two turbos and over 300BHP is only 750 to tax on the new system. Would suit me perfectly.

That is pretty amazing performance for such little tax. I was always amazed at how VW could make a 2 litre with 285 BHP and get it in at 570 euro/ year.

But BMW at over 300bhp for 750 euro... really amazing stuff indeed.

I don't understand it TBH....to get the power... you require to burn fuel and air which obviously produces emissions. More power means more fuel being burnt... which means more emissions!

Not sure how BMW and VW have managed to do it? But they have defied Irish motor Tax law!!

CJhaughey

ABC101 wrote: »

Not sure how BMW and VW have managed to do it?

VW have form in reducing emissions for tests, the diesels were caught, I wonder has anyone tested the Petrol versions?

colm_mcm

Yee, wasn't there an issue with the co2 on the 1.4 TSI engines?

Sam Russell

Also a lot of the test is conducted with unrepresentative vehicles with panel gaps taped up and alternators removed. The tests were in many cases tested in house.

I often wonder if VW were not alone in 'testing' their cars the way they did.

ABC101

Well something canna be right.

To produce more power whether it be diesel of petrol you have to burn more fuel with more air which results in more emissions, in particular more Co2 emissions.

It would appear that the State is just told by the manufacturer the car will produce X g/Km.... and the State just rolls over and says ...."O.K. that's grand then".

Will we ever see the day in Ireland where independent testing is carried out rather than taking the manufacturers figures at face value.

ABC101

Sam Russell wrote: »

Also a lot of the test is conducted with unrepresentative vehicles with panel gaps taped up and alternators removed. The tests were in many cases tested in house.

I often wonder if VW were not alone in 'testing' their cars the way they did.

Almost all posters in the Boards motor section have commented that they never match the consumption figures which the manufacturer states.

In addition I heard of one test where the car was on rollers, but because the car was stationary there was no air resistance, so impressive figures were produced. I think it might have been Fiat.

Recent article in the Financial Times where a report on Renault emissions was heavily redacted, due to the French Govt having a 20% stake in the company.

Mitsubishi have confessed / got caught out as well.

I would not be surprised if all the car manufacturers are lying to some degree.

*Kol*

I thought all of the manufacturers did their Fuel economy test on rollers? If you did it on the roads the results would be inconsistent, although realistic. You could test a thousand of the same car on different days, roads, drivers etc and you would get a thousand different results.

unkel

ABC101 wrote: »

Well something canna be right.

To produce more power whether it be diesel of petrol you have to burn more fuel with more air which results in more emissions, in particular more Co2 emissions.

There is one error in your logic. Yes to produce more power you have to burn more fuel (thus produce more CO2). The only reason of being for a turbo is so it can get more oxygen into the cylinder (thus using more fuel)!

The test is not done using all the power a car has though, almost the opposite. The drive is extremely gentle, I doubt if more than about 10% of the power of the car is even used

ABC101

*Kol* wrote: »

I thought all of the manufacturers did their Fuel economy test on rollers? If you did it on the roads the results would be inconsistent, although realistic. You could test a thousand of the same car on different days, roads, drivers etc and you would get a thousand different results.

Thanks for that, kinda makes sense when you think about it!

*Kol*

unkel wrote: »

There is one error in your logic. Yes to produce more power you have to burn more fuel (thus produce more CO2). The only reason of being for a turbo is so it can get more oxygen into the cylinder (thus using more fuel)!

The test is not done using all the power a car has though, almost the opposite. The drive is extremely gentle, I doubt if more than about 10% of the power of the car is even used

They don't drive them on the roads to get the fuel consumption figures

ABC101

unkel wrote: »

There is one error in your logic. Yes to produce more power you have to burn more fuel (thus produce more CO2). The only reason of being for a turbo is so it can get more oxygen into the cylinder (thus using more fuel)!

The test is not done using all the power a car has though, almost the opposite. The drive is extremely gentle, I doubt if more than about 10% of the power of the car is even used

Agreed, a turbo gets more air in etc etc.

So how on Earth do they get away with such low emission figures then?

We all agree that to produce more power requires more air and fuel which also gives rise to higher emissions.

So how does a VW 2.0 TSI turbo producing 285 Bhp come in with annual tax bill of 570 euro, but a 2.5 lt Subaru with 170BHP is double or treble times in annual tax?

Could it be the case the VW / BMW engines are super economical at low rpm but once increased to 3500rpm they just drink fuel? But they are only measured for emissions at the lower rpm?

I don't get it...it's like getting something for nothing!

unkel

Pretty much. The VW and BMW modern turbo petrol engines are extremely efficient. So doing the emissions test (which is all driving miss Daisy kinda speeds) they use very little petrol and emit very little CO2. Hence the low official emissions figures. And the low tax

But obviously when you belt a twin turbo 3 litre 6 cylinder petrol auto 5-series, all of a sudden it will not do 60mpg, more like 10mpg

Leonard Hofstadter

There was nothing wrong with introducing a VRT and motor tax system based on CO2 emissions, as opposed to engine size. Engine siz was a disaster and totally archaic. Correlation does not equal causation, but we ended up with Irish specials, such as the 1.4 Bora, BMW 316i, 1.6 Mondeo, 1.6 Avensis etc.

There was everything wrong with designing a system that is so discriminatory towards people who'd like a nice car with a nice engine but only do 5,000 miles a year but lets away people who do 30,000 miles a year in a filthy, dirty, carcinogenic diesel engine.

Another problem with the system is that the cheapest cars on the CO2 system is €170 while the most expensive is €2,350, which is beyond ridiculous. As most cars are in band A, people with a post-08 car are often paying €200, or less, while people with a pre-08 car are paying double that if they have even a measles little 1.6, which was a relatively large one back in the day.

What should have been done was make the tax system fairer so that the cheapest was about €350 and the most expensive about €1,000, that way people who want nice, fast cars could still buy them, and the much narrower variation in values means that revenues are far more sustainable. It would also be more beneficial for those who were 'early adopters' to the CO2 system; under the current system a brand new G11 730d costs just €270 a year in motor tax (thanks to CO2 emissions of 124 g/km - in Europe there is also a version which is rated at 119 g/km so that version is even less again, at €200 a year - for a car that costs almost €100k new), while someone who bought an F01 730d back in July 2008 would be paying €1,200 in car tax, because that car's emissions were 192 g/km back then.

The silliness of the tax system, combined with the penal rates of VRT once you got to a higher polluting car, often meant that a diesel engine was in fact cheaper to buy once you went beyond the likes of a Fiesta or a Yaris. At the time, you couldn't blame people for buying diesel in a sense. I remember not long after the then tax system was introduced and my parents looking at the then new Avensis. The diesel was about €500 more expensive than the 1.6 petrol, and even if the car didn't drive a single mile, the tax difference paid for itself in less than two years. Hence, nobody bought them. That was far from uncommon.

Now, petrols have caught up with diesels in terms of emissions, while the car tax system hasn't changed that much since 2008. Although it's still true in some cases, nowadays it is quite easy to find a car where the petrol model is once again cheaper than the diesel, even in cars the size of the Passat a petrol can be somewhat cheaper to buy. For larger cars, it's still diesel all the way, but that too will change as more and more cars become available with a plug-in hybrid option. Thanks to the ultra low tax, and the various grants, the plug-in hybrids are often no more expensive to buy than a diesel, but will have a much more powerful engine, and the superior refinement and lower maintenance costs of a petrol .

Anyway, back to the OP. It is a common misconception that diesels are not suitable for low mileage drivers, and cause all sorts of problems if they're not driven often enough. That is simply not true. Low mileage in and of itself is absolutely not a problem for any diesel engine. If you do 4,000 miles a year, and prefer a diesel to a petrol, good for you, if you want a diesel then you should buy one.

What IS a problem is the type of driving. They do not like being driven around town constantly. Constant town driving causes the particulate filter to clog up and, if left unchecked, block up completely (some models are more sensitive to this than others). If the filter clogs up, a good motorway blast should sort it out, but some times the filter can get so blocked up it's not possible to regenerate it in this way, and a new one is needed, which can cost as much as €1,000. They take longer to warm up than a petrol, so there is next to no improvement in fuel consumption if most of your driving is short distance stop-start.

Many are also a pig to drive around town anyway when coupled with a manual gearbox. In traffic, you can't simply use the clutch to inch the car forward in traffic like you can with a petrol. A diesel always needs a good bit of accelerator to pull away otherwise it will stall - a petrol engine, even a very small and underpowered one, will pull away just using the clutch if you're on the flat, no problem whatsoever. The clutch can be heavier in a diesel (depending on the model) and the gearbox is usually not as sweet to use as a petrol (because they are stronger to handle the higher torque levels of a diesel). In a sense, it's just as well you have to rev them to pull away, running a diesel at very low revs and not giving them enough welly when pulling away is a recipe for the dual mass flywheel failing (again, this depends on the car, some makes are much more prone to this problem than others).

That might leave some to wonder why diesels are still very popular for taxis, even though they're mostly driven around town and/or at low enough speeds. The truth is when they're driven long enough, they will find a way to regenerate the particulate filter (a good blast of the accelerator for a few seconds every 20-30 miles can be enough), and besides, when was the last time you saw a slow taxi driver? The flywheel problem is solved by putting in a solid flywheel in some cars (it makes the pedals much rougher but causes no other damage), although other cars cannot be converted back to solid flywheels (which is what most petrol engines still use as they are much smoother running than diesel engines, and therefore don't need DMFs).

For the rest of us, diesels should be avoided at all costs if the type of driving you're planning on doing is largely urban. Stuff like the particulate filter and dual mass flywheel, which make them less bad to drive and less polluting to our lungs are only really designed to work with at least some portion of out-of-town driving. A diesel needs a good motorway blast (or even a blast on a main road at 100 km/h) at least once a month to keep the particulate filter tickety-boo.

Leonard Hofstadter

colm_mcm wrote: »

Yee, wasn't there an issue with the co2 on the 1.4 TSI engines?

Indeed, but as I recall, it wasn't just that engine where they had to change the values, current model A4 diesels were affected as well, I think the 3.0 TDI got its values changed, too, as well as some VW Group products with both the 2.0 TSI and TDI engines.

ABC101

Well chaps good blogging with you, from reading this article it would appear that N/A petrol's are on the way out. BMW, Audi don't offer N/A engines, and Mercedes say that they are on the way out.

Knock sensors, Direct injection into the cylinder, turbo efficiency savings, variable valve timing have allowed previous low compression / low fuel economy petrol engines efficiency to be increased substantially.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-grim-future-of-the-naturally-aspirated-engine-or-the-turbos-are-winning/

pkvader

Op here ,thanks for all the replys lads,my wife is looking at a VW Jetta petrol and a few Corollas.

Just a question about trading in the Peugeots,should we be fully honest with the dealership and tell them the car got a full engine rebuild etc etc,the car is like new now,I'm not sure how to approach things with the salesman.

Let them look at it themselves and they can make their mind up,
they know what they are at

pkvader

BrownFinger wrote: »

Let them look at it themselves and they can make their mind up,
they know what they are at

Probably the best to say nothing so,cheers

grogi

ABC101 wrote: »

Well chaps good blogging with you, from reading this article it would appear that N/A petrol's are on the way out. BMW, Audi don't offer N/A engines, and Mercedes say that they are on the way out.

Knock sensors, Direct injection into the cylinder, turbo efficiency savings, variable valve timing have allowed previous low compression / low fuel economy petrol engines efficiency to be increased substantially.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/the-grim-future-of-the-naturally-aspirated-engine-or-the-turbos-are-winning/

They are. Infinity recently announced further efficiency improvements with an engine with variable compression ratio... It only makes sense with compressed air as well...

http://www.evo.co.uk/infiniti/18136/infiniti-launching-variable-compression-ratio-engine-in-paris

unkel

ABC101 wrote: »

BMW, Audi don't offer N/A engines

Audi does. Audi has the balls to still produce the glorious racing V10 engine (in the R8) where BMW gave it up a few years ago and replaced it with a twin turbo V8 that doesn't rev like it should. BMW M5 / M6 cars will never be the same again :mad:

Admittedly, Audi's fastest saloons have also switched from the N/A V10 to turbocharged V8

rustynutz

I bought a Seat Toledo 1.2 liter turbo petrol at the beginning of 2014, the car is €200 to tax, was approx 2k cheaper than the diesel equivalent and is just as economical as the 2 liter diesel mondeo it replaced. The car is also surprisingly powerful (115 bhp) for such a small engine, I would compare it to a 1.8 petrol I had previously, I put this down to the turbo.

I did agonize over whether or not to go diesel at the time but the sale price made the decision for me. I will hopefully be changing the car next year and will definitely looking at petrol. Every diesel car I've had have had huge repair bills at least annually, between dual mass fly wheels, turbos, injectors, particulate filters etc. and I was doing long journeys mostly.

grogi

rustynutz wrote: »

I bought a Seat Toledo 1.2 liter turbo petrol at the beginning of 2014, the car is €200 to tax, was approx 2k cheaper than the diesel equivalent and is just as economical as the 2 liter diesel mondeo it replaced. The car is also surprisingly powerful (115 bhp) for such a small engine, I would compare it to a 1.8 petrol I had previously, I put this down to the turbo.

I did agonize over whether or not to go diesel at the time but the sale price made the decision for me. I will hopefully be changing the car next year and will definitely looking at petrol. Every diesel car I've had have had huge repair bills at least annually, between dual mass fly wheels, turbos, injectors, particulate filters etc. and I was doing long journeys mostly.

But do you know that a 1.2 TSI also has: direct petrol injectors, turbo-charger, dual-mass flywheel. The only thing that's missing is the DPF - but GPF are on the way in... :]

ABC101

unkel wrote: »

ABC101 wrote: »

BMW, Audi don't offer N/A engines

Audi does. Audi has the balls to still produce the glorious racing V10 engine (in the R8) where BMW gave it up a few years ago and replaced it with a twin turbo V8 that doesn't rev like it should. BMW M5 / M6 cars will never be the same again :mad:

Admittedly, Audi's fastest saloons have also switched from the N/A V10 to turbocharged V8

Yes the article I posted mentioned the Audi R8. But that is the exception as distinct from the norm. Not many of these beauties going around in Ireland these days.



On another point which I don't think has been raised, WRT to Diesel vrs Petrol debate.

If a Diesel is going to cost more to buy initially. Then unless you do the mileage you are not going to recup your initial expenditure.

I am not a expert but I have heard (open to correction) that you should be somewhere north of 18,000 km/ year to recover the cost of driving a diesel engined car when compared to a economical petrol. That is ALL in cost, cost of buying new, maintaining etc etc etc

Even if you are saving money / year, it will still take a number of years to break even on savings.

Now as I mentioned, I'm no expert, open to correction etc, but I do think there is some logic there.

Francie Barrett

Wonder how many of the people on here complaining about diesels actually drive diesels themselves? Personally, I will only ever drive a diesel as it works out most economical for me.

ABC101

Francie Barrett wrote: »

Wonder how many of the people on here complaining about diesels actually drive diesels themselves? Personally, I will only ever drive a diesel as it works out most economical for me.

Absolutely delighted the diesel works out well for you, good man.

This tread is about pros & cons of one particular ICE engine. Cost benefit analysis, return on investment etc.

Those terms apply to just about everything that requires capital expenditure I.e. Solar panels, renewable energy, nuclear power plants, the Luas, attic insulation etc not just Diesel engines.

Zane Wailing Wall

Zane Wailing Wall wrote: »

......
People forget that even if you do small mileage every year you will save a lot of money in diesel compared to the equivalent petrol model as you will be getting near twice the mpg and it's cheaper at the pump.

You'll see well in excess of 50mpg from an auris hybrid on non motorway spins, a diesel will struggle to match it.

You'd have to go 5 series petrol to 5 series diesel to see the near double mpg difference IMO.

Lots of people see low 40mpg when not motorway cruising a diesel, there aren't many people seeing mpg in the 20s from petrol s and over half the nation's carpark is still petrol despite all the diesel sold since 2008.

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

......

In traffic, you can't simply use the clutch to inch the car forward in traffic like you can with a petrol. A diesel always needs a good bit of accelerator to pull away otherwise it will stall - a petrol engine, even a very small and underpowered one, will pull away just using the clutch if you're on the flat, no problem whatsoever. The clutch can be heavier in a diesel (depending on the model) and the gearbox is usually not as sweet to use as a petrol (because they are stronger to handle the higher torque levels of a diesel). In a sense, it's just as well you have to rev them to pull away, running a diesel at very low revs and not giving them enough welly when pulling away is a recipe for the dual mass flywheel failing (again, this depends on the car, some makes are much more prone to this problem than others).

........

Your posts seem to be typically largely paraphrased internet chat you've read but you occasionally through in your own utterings and show yourself up.

A diesel will stall pulling away without a "good bit" of accelerator? What diesels have you experienced this in? (Answers on a folded postage stamp)

JBokeh

Augeo wrote: »

Your posts seem to be typically largely paraphrased internet chat you've read but you occasionally through in your own utterings and show yourself up.

A diesel will stall pulling away without a "good bit" of accelerator? What diesels have you experienced this in? (Answers on a folded postage stamp)

Thought I was the only one to spot that, can get most diesels up to 4th on the flat without touching the accelerator. Diesels aren't the only things to suffer from DMF problems, a DMF by it's nature has a lifespan, they just only seem to show up in the big capacity petrols, where they still give up the ghost.

Who on here, hand on heart, will say they bought their car for the emissions,and nothing else? I think there is only 2 petrol cars in my family fleet, one is my sisters astra, and the other is my old man's lexus, which is his retirement barge, Love driving it, hate fuelling it

ABC101

JBokeh wrote: »

Augeo wrote: »

Your posts seem to be typically largely paraphrased internet chat you've read but you occasionally through in your own utterings and show yourself up.

A diesel will stall pulling away without a "good bit" of accelerator? What diesels have you experienced this in? (Answers on a folded postage stamp)

Thought I was the only one to spot that, can get most diesels up to 4th on the flat without touching the accelerator. Diesels aren't the only things to suffer from DMF problems, a DMF by it's nature has a lifespan, they just only seem to show up in the big capacity petrols, where they still give up the ghost.

Who on here, hand on heart, will say they bought their car for the emissions,and nothing else? I think there is only 2 petrol cars in my family fleet, one is my sisters astra, and the other is my old man's lexus, which is his retirement barge, Love driving it, hate fuelling it

Maybe I am just a gullible fool.... but I did not buy my car for emissions only, I bought it for reliability, price and purpose etc.

However I do feel guilty about using a ICE. Perhaps it is the media, all the stories you read about global warming, flooding etc etc.

Perhaps when I migrate to a Nissan Leaf or equivalent then I will feel better?

larchill

Petrol is definitely making a comeback! The new Audi A4 is appearing as the 150bhp 1.4TSFI now. It's €4k cheaper than the 2.0Tdi (€34k vs €39k). I've seen a few of these around too. Previously petrol was non existant - maybe the very occasional 1.8TFSI 120bhp. I know a chap who has a Skoda Fabia 1.2Tsi having previously had a 1.6Tdi. He was aware of the lower mileage/short journey vs higher mileage/longer journey issue! The new Audi A3, now also offers a 1.0Tsi in addition to the 1.6Tdi. Ford also have the 1.0 petrol unit available in the Focus now giving 160bhp! This also available in the Mondeo, which is stretching things a bit - its a big car!

You'd expect a €34k 150bhp A4 to sell really well.

larchill

We'll see. Not everyone has €34k to spend

Sam Russell

I am looking at the VW Tiguan but the petrol is only available in the lowest spec so I will not be going with it. The Audi Q3 is the same - only low spec in petrol.

The Seat Ateca is available at higher/higher spec in petrol but have not seen one yet. They are also in low supply as they were only announced as available in September and only demos are in dealers at the moment.

larchill

Skoda have a new Tiguan like model coming out too - there might be possibilities there? We're only @ the early stages of the swing back to petrol. More options, better spec, etc will emerge in time.

ABC101

Suzuki have brought out a replacement for their 120 bhp 1.6 petrol, its called petrol booster, 1.4lt, 140bhp, torque increase and almost 50mpg.

The times are a changing... petrol is making a comeback with variable valve timing, turbo and direct injection across all manufacturers etc.

And of course Ford with the impressive Ecoboost engine range.