Mini review.

Yes, like diesels tending to be closer to 2K more expensive than petrol engines.

Reply to
Steve Firth
Loading thread data ...

The DMF is supposed to smooth the vibrations at low RPM so clutch take up is smooth, not juddery. Petrol motors don't have them, diesels don't need them but in order to sell people expect them to be smooth.

Transits seem to be my garage's favourite DMF pet hate - "why even bother having one in a van". Most of the time replaced with a solid flywheel.

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

It's hard to quantify. Let me put it this way - my example:

Volvo S60. Nice comfy car, manual 24mpg with my right foot. At 30k miles p/a that's 6500 quid per year in fuel at todays prices E270CDi,. Nice comfy car, auto, 32mpg with my right foot. £4800 per year, a saving of £1700 quid.

Anyone doing

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

Me sir, I beat it.

But since the car cost 500 quid 4 years ago, this isn't hard. Equivalent petrol might have been 100-200 quid less?

Reply to
Clive George

Likewise. I get 20MPG more with my diesel Mondeo than a petrol one. The car cost £1k more than its petrol equivalent (3yr old used).

Reply to
Conor

Really?

New in 2001, mine was =A31100 more than a 1.6 16v and about =A3500 more than a 2.0 petrol... nowhere near =A32k in other words.

Having said that, the point is I didn't buy it new... maybe you should try factoring in that before coming out with yet more 'my calculations equate to', because your calculations aren't relevant to every scenario where someone has bought a diesel over a petrol.

I'll play along for now though... according to Parkers, the 1.6 16v is now worth about =A3700 less than mine - so actual extra the diesel would have cost someone overall who'd bought one new and went to sell it now going by the *guide* price, is =A3400 or thereabouts.

The 2.0 is now worth about =A3600 less than mine, so using the same scenario as above, it's actually cost =A3100 more in real terms, to own the petrol than the diesel.

Then there's the fact that the diesels are much easier to sell - it may surprise you to know that not everyone is as blinkered as you when it comes to what they want from a car, and as a result not only do the Mk4 diesels fetch a premium over the petrols when sold, they depreciate slower and the demand for them is much higher.

-- JackH

Reply to
JackH

I've not had a petrol Mk4 Golf, but I had a 1.8 petrol Mk3 briefly at around the same time I had a Mk3 TDI, so I'll use those for comparison purposes.

The TDI cost a grand and tended to average 52mpg overall.

The petrol, =A3600 and at best it did 38mpg.

=A3400 difference in price.

Over say 12k miles, the TDI would have used 230.7 gallons, which at todays prices equates to =A31151 in fuel.

The petrol, using the same figure for fuel, as in =A31.09.9 =3D =A31571 in fuel... and this is with me being generous about the MPG, as the TDIs seemed to be more consistent economy wise over the petrols, which took far more of a knock to the MPG around town or when you booted it.

The TDI won't have depreciated any more than the petrol pro-rata... in fact it may have depreciated less due to the even higher demand than before, for economical cars.

-- JackH

Reply to
JackH

Yes really, but thanks for playing "This shagged out old nail didn't cost that much."

Reply to
Steve Firth

Nope - you're still talking out of your arse.

The new Golf estate has just been launched.

You can get the S model with either a 1.2 TSI petrol or 1.6 TDI in various states of tunes.

To get them both with 105PS, you're looking at =A317,200 for the 1.2 TSI petrol and =A318.410 for the 1.6 TDI... so nowhere near =A32k.

Go for the 90PS 1.6TDI, and you're looking at =A317,800... so =A3600 more than the petrol.

Please don't consider all vehicles past a certain age to be 'shagged out old nails', just because the ones you stupidly lumber yourself with are as washed up and saggy as you. :'(

HTH

-- JackH

Reply to
JackH

Thank you for playing "I think I can find one example so all diesel cars must differ in price by the amount specified".

Although once more you're not comparing apples with apples, since VW list the Golf-S 1.4 at £14,670 and the TDI-S at 17,224 in the same trim. Oh look, the TDi is more than £2000 dearer than the petrol equivalent. And you're going to have to run both cars for 420,000 miles before the diesel shows a return on the price differential.

Heck, why didn't you come up with the fact that you can get a diesel Jag XF for £29,000 and the 5.0 supercharged XFR for £62,000 and hence "prove" that diesels cost £33,000 less than petrol engined cars?

Reply to
Steve Firth

Bollocks, brain trouble - 90,000 miles.

Reply to
Steve Firth

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Umm, not quite that simple - and I dunno where those prices came from, because it wasn't VW...

Golf VI estate, S (pikey-spec) trim.

1.2 TSI 105 - £17,200 1.6 TDI 90 - £17,810 1.6 TDI 105 - £18,410 1.2 TSI DSG - £18,700 1.6 TDI 105 BluMo - £18,820

SE trim

1.4 TSI 122 - £18,980 1.6 TDI 105 - £19,505 1.6 TDI 105 BluMo - £19,915 1.4 TSI 122 DSG - £20,475 2.0 TDI 140 - £20,990 1.6 TDI 105 DSG - £21,090 1.6 TDI 105 DSG BluMo - £21,415 2.0 TDI 140 DSG - £22,495

Sportline is diesel-only.

So, depending on what you count as an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between petrol and diesel is as low as £120 (S-spec with DSG). The only "£2k difference" is if you go for the 1.4 TSI 122 vs 2.0 TDI 140.

Rather more to the point is why the f*ck anybody would even consider paying £22.5k for a Golf estate. Even over £17k for the entry-level is loopy money.

Reply to
Adrian

formatting link

Reply to
Steve Firth

So the Golf TDI-S is only 0.61p/mile cheaper to fuel than the Golf-S 1.4 then? Methinks sir doth exaggerate slightly....

You guys....

Reply to
AstraVanMann

Here's an extreme one for you.

Merc S350CDI vs S350 petrol. Buy new, run 120k miles over 4 yrs.

Diesel car is 1932 cheaper to buy, 570 cheaper to tax, 5152 cheaper to fuel and worth 1300 more at the end of the period...

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

And 400% more pikier throughout. It's a winner.

Reply to
Steve Firth

9000 quid in pocket, that's enough mental compensation. Debadging - no cost option - that sorts the image out.
Reply to
Tim S Kemp

It's a perfect example of a current mainstream car, and it's a relevant follow on from the original examples I gave, as in what my car and its petrol siblings originally cost (with a price difference that's nowhere near the =A32k you claimed), and what they're worth now (which reflects there's even less cost to the diesel driver overall), showing exactly how much a diesel one of these has cost someone over the petrol equivalent.

In fact the example of my car is more relevant, because it shows what the actual longer term cost to someone in terms of the original purchase cost of the car is rather than the initial hit was... regardless of the fact that initial hit was nowhere near the ballpark you stated.

A shame that the figures piss all over your ever fading and irrelevant bonfire, but they're valid all the same.

Erm, I have - I've gone for the very latest Golf estate, as in the Mk6 and pulled the figures down off of VWs own website.

I've also picked models with the same bhp...

Not sure what you're looking at, but suspect it's the outgoing Mk5, something no longer sold directly by VW themselves.

If it is, they didn't offer the estate with the 1.4.

If a hatch, the 1.4 came in many levels of poke with the lowest, which I suspect is the one you've gone for, lumbered with 73bhp, whereas the lowest BHP available from the 1.9 TDI is 105bhp.

Hardly equivalent, especially when you factor in the extra torque of the TDI.

Oh look, you've picked an outgoing model being sold by car supermarkets and with there being less demand for it due to it being the mongrel of the range that most dismiss as underpowered, and which therefore will invariably depreciate faster and be more difficult to shift on later on.

ROFL

Because I'm not the one desperately looking for something to throw into the debate to make me not look such an arse, something which has unfortunately come about due to my spouting ill informed bollocks and which in turn has consistently been proven to be wrong.

Now I'm sure you can come up with some figures that reflect a price difference between petrol and diesel equivalents in stuff in the upper echelons in the market... and if so, I congratulate you.

But if you'd wanted your original argument to be backed up by something along those lines, perhaps you'd not have come across as quite so clueless if you'd not generalised with the figure of =A32k.

-- JackH

Reply to
JackH

I had a heart attack when I saw how much the local main stealer had an ex demo GTD hatch up for.

-- JackH

Reply to
JackH

£2K appears to be a fairly reasonable average differential between diseasel and petrol *of the same spec* however you insist on talking about S/H price differentials. So all you're proving is that someone lost even more by buying a diesel (the previous owner).

"For a while diesel has traditionally been seen as the cheaper alternative - giving many more miles to the gallon - it now costs on average 12p per litre more than petrol.

"That, combined with the extra cost of the initial car purchase, means it can take years of driving in some models for the switch to make economic sense.

"The research by car experts Parker's shows that choosing, for example, a BMW 318 diesel could take 28 years to recoup the extra cost of the diesel car over an equivalent version powered by petrol.

"Even in a diesel Mini, it could take the driver six to seven years to break even. A Ford Mondeo diesel could take almost as long, at around six years."

...

"A diesel car costs on average £1,400 more than its petrol equivalent."

formatting link

Reply to
Steve Firth

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.