Viewing: Diesel - no longer dirty and slow - no longer cost effective>>>>????

***HDi fun*** · 20-12-2009, 11:22 PM

Right, then: Diesel......

No longer a dirty word. The performance has been sorted out. The refinement has been sorted out. The driveability has been sorted out. I was the original diesel hater, BTW.

But - is it really the economical fuel any longer?

I love the way modern diesel cars drive, with immense muscle from little over idle speed right through to the rev limiter. It's hard to ignore diesel as the performance option now. To some extent diesel has started to become the preferred performance option for many.

Now let's consider real total cost of ownership rather than fuel economy alone.

1. The fuel costs more per litre.

2. Servicing in usually more frequent (and if it's not prescribed by the manufacturer maybe it's just them trying to make the car seem competitive against it's petrol powered brethren).

3. Servicing is usually more costly. Diesel engines require very specific oils these days and it can cost upwards of fifty quid for a fill. Fuel filters need to be replaced constantly. Particle filters often require a specific additive to be replenished.

4. Dual mass flywheels - most 4 cylinder diesels use these to reduce vibration. But they seem to fail regularly, possibly due to the ridiculous torque figures that diesels produce.

I reckon, all up, that you're possibly better off with a 3-3.5 litre NASP petrol engine over a 2 - 2.5 litre turbo diesel with similar performance.

Diesel's (as in Rudolf) original brainchild was economy. That seems to me to have died of late.

Perhaps another ten years or so of development will see some significant improvements.

FOr me - next purchase is to be put to the jury. I like the idea of a Mondeo 2.2 ST TDCi with a remap. But, would I be any worse off overall (say 5 years of ownership) with a 2nd user BMW 535i in stock tune?

I shall continue to extol the virtues of diesel and the driving characteristics of such engines but I suspect that we need to consider more than fuel economy from both sides. Don't necessarily buy petrol for performance - diesel engines will serve you well in those stakes but I don't think you should plump for diesel simply to save money.

Ignoring engine size and ignore the cc for cc comparions even £ for £ at purchase - diesels will generally win this contest in the performance stakes.

But total cost of buying, owning, running I don't think is reason enough anymore to buy diesel.

**turbonutter69** · 21-12-2009, 04:04 AM

Hdi I don't agree.
You can't compare a diesel with a petrol of the same cc. I'm sorry but petrol will win the performance stakes everytime. Diesel will win the Mpg but not performance.

***waynne*** · 21-12-2009, 09:50 AM

He wasn't

The example given was for a much larger petrol engine giving similar power.

Also with Turbos (both petrol and diesel) there are lots of variables to take into account so baseline engine size comparisons are a little ambiguous.

I think HDI has summed up the current state of the Diesel world. Now more people are buying them and there is more demand for fuel the price has shot up.

Years ago a high mileage driver would have benefitted from a big saving by using diesel but now this just does not happen.

**RedlineX2** · 21-12-2009, 10:14 AM

Diesel costs more than petrol

Now thats odd. Price difference here in Finland is quite huge, i thought t'was the only reason people bought diesels!

***HDi fun*** · 21-12-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbonutter69

Hdi I don't agree.
You can't compare a diesel with a petrol of the same cc. I'm sorry but petrol will win the performance stakes everytime. Diesel will win the Mpg but not performance.

CC for CC the a diesel turbo will effortlessly outrun a petrol Naturally aspirated car.

£ for £ at car purchase you will get more performance for your money with high end diesel engines.

New Mondeo 2.3 petrol: 158bhp; 129mph; 0-60: 10.2

" " 2.2 TDCi: 172bhp; 139mph; 0-60: 8.4

This is by no means the only example.

**turbonutter69** · 21-12-2009, 12:20 PM

Hdi you've just made my point for me. Your comparing a TD against a NASP. Thats why the diesel wins.
You can't compare a Turbo Diesel to a NASP.

***HDi fun*** · 21-12-2009, 12:36 PM

But you also can't compare turbo petrol with turbo diesel at the same purchase price point.

Additionally, though, it wasn't so many years ago that the TD would still lose to a similar sized petrol NASP engine.

**MasterAuron** · 21-12-2009, 07:16 PM

Comes down to how many miles you do I suppose. Do silly silly mileage and a diesel probably is more cost effective, but I agree with most of the points you've made; it's debatable now.

Turbo Petrol is the way forwards tbh. Drive off boost constantly even in something like a 200SX and you'll see 30mpg+ but still plenty of get up and go when you need it.

***HDi fun*** · 21-12-2009, 11:38 PM

VW's 1.4 litre 168bhp petrol is stunning. 170bhp !!!!

It's hard to ignore this. Petrol engines have been developed for far longer than diesels.

Once someone can make a dual mass flywheel that lasts indefinitely and a particle filter that requires no maintenance then diesel might attract me again. I like the drive - I'm not so keen on the servicing costs.

Hence my interest in a second user 5 series with a straight six 3 litre plus petrol engine. I also don't like automatic diesels that much at all.

**WLBjork** · 22-12-2009, 12:27 PM

That 1.4 VW unit is both turbo- and super- charged though, and is uprated internally (standard tune is 122hp, moderate is 157hp, do any vehicles currently get the 168hp varient?).

The other thing is a sporty diesel is probably cheaper to insure than a sporty petrol.

**pgarner** · 22-12-2009, 01:45 PM

theres a few got the 170 varient.

***HDi fun*** · 22-12-2009, 02:06 PM

Latest Superb has the 170bhp unit I think. Whether available in UK don't know.

AS for insurance I think the underwriters are catching on now. They won't miss the chance to ramp up premiums.

**WLBjork** · 23-12-2009, 10:22 AM

*Shrug* Couldn't find any 1.4/170s on the Audi, Skoda or VW sites, so I guess they aren't available here just yet.

As for image, odds are that Insurers will spot it long before the average driver in the street.

***waynne*** · 23-12-2009, 04:10 PM

The new scirocco is tipped to have this powerplant fitted.

**pgarner** · 23-12-2009, 08:39 PM

rocco does as theres complaints that they arnt fitting the 122 varient into in in the UK only the 140 and 170

certain the golf has it as well possibly the A3 as well. there was talk of them being fitted to the skoda octivia

**theballboy** · 06-01-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDi fun

FOr me - next purchase is to be put to the jury. I like the idea of a Mondeo 2.2 ST TDCi with a remap. But, would I be any worse off overall (say 5 years of ownership) with a 2nd user BMW 535i in stock tune?

This is exactly where I am at. COnsidering my next purchase. (hopefully in next 6 months) I only do 12-15k miles a year currently.

Funnily enough I am considering the TDCI st (was traditionally always looking at BHP but research Ive done suggests that lb/ft and torque very important too) also however I am also considering one of the VAG petrol turbo units - 2.0t @ 197bhp and possibility to remap turbo also

My main priority is to get something with decent power / torque (torque mainly I think as through research I believe this to be the throw you back in your seat mid range punch which diesels give) Not that concerned with top speed as never really get chance. Its all about the quickness in gear for me

However in saying that I do also try to strick a balance with economy and for me that includes both petrol costs and insurance groups.

Example, I had a v6 cougar 170bhp which i loved, was beautifully smooth to drive and lots of power IMO. BUT lucky to get 29mpg and after a while this was an issue for me. How I know that people talk about initial outlay for car etc and over period of time costs levelling out, but I notice the petrol costs coming out of my pocket much more.

So im in the same thought process. High performance diesel (hoping to break 40mpg - group 15ish insurance)
or Skoda / audi / volkswagon 2.0t with hopefully mid 30s mpg (maybe an economy map which although not increasing performance might increase MPG and not take away from performance) and alot smoother ride (low gears available), no more issues with DMF or injectors etc

**pgarner** · 06-01-2010, 05:35 PM

going to snow in her (its too cold for the rain

) both the petrol and diesel 2.0 vag units also have DMF

**theballboy** · 06-01-2010, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgarner

both the petrol and diesel 2.0 vag units also have DMF

Well minus that issue then.

What would you go for yourself given the circumstances.
SHould prob mention to that ddiesel only costs me 95p a litre given that I live beside republic of ireland and taking sterling into account - but then again. I dont know how much it is on the mainland. Maybe cheaper

***HDi fun*** · 06-01-2010, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgarner

going to snow in her (its too cold for the rain

) both the petrol and diesel 2.0 vag units also have DMF

Yeah, but the petrol engine isn't asking it to stand up in the face of 300lbft of torque at the flywheel.

**pgarner** · 07-01-2010, 04:54 PM

no but its still likely to brake. remember that its also being asked to spin alot faster which is putting strain on the springs. not sure how the new one holds up. the old ones fromthe 1.8 and 1.9 werent too bad as long as you werent rough with starts

***HDi fun*** · 07-01-2010, 08:32 PM

The red line in my 406 was 5300rpm. That is very high for a 4 cylinder diesel engine. I suppose it was delivering sod all torque at that speed so perhaps it all evens out eventually.

I'm still likely to go for a large capacity straight six petrol next (so, BMW or Lexus are the options) simply for the mechanical simplicity such engines bring to the party.

**theballboy** · 07-01-2010, 09:44 PM

Don't know now. I loved the v6 smoothness. Def something special. Economy just too sore. If I could find something in the middle. Maybe the vag2.0 t is the answer

***HDi fun*** · 07-01-2010, 11:55 PM

The V6 Cougar was a 2.5 engine lifted form the Mondeo if I'm correct.

Not the smoothest and quickest of V6s (not by a big margin either) but without a doubt it was nigh on indestructible.

**theballboy** · 08-01-2010, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HDi fun

The V6 Cougar was a 2.5 engine lifted form the Mondeo if I'm correct.
Not the smoothest and quickest of V6s

yup straight out of mondy. I guess since it was the first v6 I ever had or drove it just seemed so much smoother to me. No wasn't amazingly fast either but made a big diff from my xsara before that. What kinda v6 is available out there these days with slightly better economy? Maybe I just need to forget about economy if I'm looking for performance. Def need to get myself something enjoyable cause the old car change only comes around every 2 years at the least. In fact I'm a bit obseessed at the mo.

***HDi fun*** · 08-01-2010, 01:13 AM

V6 engines are not in perfect primary and secondary balance. Straight sixes are. But they can suffer from torsional balance problems due to the longer crankshaft length.

I happen to adore the deep chested mid range shove that modern diesels offer. But it comes at a cost. Servicing is more frequent and more costly.

Turning things upside down, I think that a user/driver/owner/chooser would go for diesel over petrol for performance in the same price bracket.
=
For a long term ownership prospect I still feel that the jury is out - petrol cars are much simpler to maintain.