Smell the desperation :-)

Trouble is, some companies believe that putting DervMan in control of car lists is a good idea.... ;-)

Reply to
SteveH
Loading thread data ...

That's a point - what's the biggest/most powerful D4D engine Toyota produced?

And just how uneconomical is the LS430?

Reply to
AstraVanMann

"AstraVanMann" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

4.2 6-pot out the Land Cruiser Amazon?
Reply to
Adrian

Heh. Switching to a diesel only fleet* wasn't my idea, I merely made lots of the changes. They were far more concerned with the hoped-for 25% cost saving.

*aside the two people who refused and made enough money such that the chumps in charge smoothed it over.
Reply to
DervMan

It shows 16.1 / 31.7 / 23.5 on the official fuel consumption cycle. If it were mine I'd expect to see ~26 as I seem to average ~110% of the official figures of something over my commute and other mileage.

The 4.6 is slightly better: 17.1 / 35.8 / 24.5...

Reply to
DervMan

It's about tax more than it is about economy ore pikiness...

Reply to
Tim S Kemp

What size engine's that? 4.3?

Ah, didn't know they did a 4.6 litre one.

Even so, as I expected, it's not *that* uneconomical then. I mean, would a diesel really top 30mpg combined by all that much? Diesel might save £500/year or so for 30k/year. Worth paying the extra for the car in the first place? Depends on lease costs, I guess. And the whole tax system, based on CO2 being the most EVIIIILLLL thing in the world, is the more relevant thing...

Reply to
AstraVanMann

I'm with Dan on this one. It's got to improve the workrate on the farm if you can get across it at 100mph...

Reply to
Albert T Cone

Yes. The original 4.0 was upped to a 4.3 in 2000 or 2001 as I remember. Then the 4.3 was replaced with a 4.6.

Hmm. If we look at the BMW 7-Series, there's the 730i and 730d, these are reasonably comparable:

730i: 0-62 in 7.8s, 151 mph, 19.3 / 37.6 / 27.9 mpg 730d: 0-62 in 7.8s, 148 mph, 25.0 / 44.1 / 34.3 mpg

The 730d is probably going to feel just as quick on the road as an automatic and it's 23% more economical. Now if the 730i likes ordinary unleaded, the price difference in fuel is still around 15%. So you have a fuel saving of

8% per mile.

For the 2006 model using 35+3 over 20K per year, my Datasheet shows lease costs of £911 for the 730i and £937 for the 730i.

So it's pretty close. Personally I'd want to try both as the costs are close enough.

Although in 2006, What Car? reckoned the 730d would be worth 49% after three years, thirty six thousand miles, so £23,594 with a list price of £48,150 (a loss of £24,556) and the 730i worth 45% or £22,309, down from £49,575 so a "cost" of £27,266. These figures - over just three years - put the difference in fuel consumption into perspective. :-)

Exactly. The 2006 730d has a CO2 output of 216g versus 241g for the 730i. I think that puts them into different groups...

Reply to
DervMan

I read somewhere that 90% of all 7s sold in the UK are now the 730d.

Reply to
SteveH

Hold on - the diesel model's actually cheaper new than the petrol? You sure? Is that common these days?

It also comes down to the situtation of the person/company buying the car. If you're a company leasing them, or buying them and getting shot after 3 years or so, then the diesel clearly makes more sense, particularly if company car tax comes into the equation, even though the overall costs aren't all that much different.

But for the private buyer buying one at 3/4/5 years old, or even older, buying the petrol represents a lot less risk in terms of potentially expensive things that could go wrong. Ok, there's plugs and leads (and dizzy cap/rotor arm, or are these things generally electronically sorted out these days?) to worry about, but there aren't high pressure commonrail fuel pumps, turbos, the fact that diesel's filthy stuff that can clog up injectors at older age, etc etc.

Reply to
AstraVanMann

Have you been living in a cave for the past 15 years?

Dizzy cap / rotor arm? - on a modern car? - my 75 is the last car I bought with a distributor.

Ever since then, everything I've had (aside from the diesel) has had ECU fired coil packs. Which are bloody expensive when they die.

Don't think there's a lot in it, in terms of risk, to be honest.

Reply to
SteveH

I read something pretty similar, I think it was in Fleet News; however, the expected number of fleet sales for 2008 / 2009 are a bit less than previous years too! ;-)

Reply to
DervMan

Without digging out an old magazine or looking at Parkers and clearing setting myself up for a fall, butI'm confident I got it right... ;-) Perhaps BMW price 'em by power and as the 730i is more powerful, it's more expensive..?

Yes, absolutely - it's also slightly cheaper to service over 36,000 miles.

Hmm. Perhaps less risky, yes, because the risk of a turbocharged engine is usually that the driver isn't mechanically sympathetic before shut down, rather than the engine itself.

Yes there is that risk. But I imagine the risks of something expensive needing replacing elsewhere (such as suspension, ABS / TCS / ESP units) are just the same on both and the donk sensor failure risk won't be much different.

And don't forget that nasty, highly inflammable petrol stuff can burn so darn easily, there's the chance the car will spontaneously burst into flame.

Reply to
DervMan

Yeah, probably.....

Tbh, the last time I had any need to do any ignition system fault-finding on a car (petrol or diesel) was on one of the 2 litre Carltons - that didn't have a distributor as such - just a rotor arm on the end of the camshaft (or something linked to the camshaft?) and a dizzy cap over that. Am I right in thinking that's a fair bit different to an old-fashioned distributor? Certainly looked a lot different to the ones on my old Escorts.

Reply to
AstraVanMann

That's just a modern take on the distributor, without contact points, condensor etc.

The breaker-point function is performed by the ECU, as is the advance and retard.

Reply to
SteveH

Ah right, fair enough.

There's no need for that :-)

Reply to
AstraVanMann

Argh!

Condens*e*r.

Just been watching Manchester United winning the World Club Cup, so wasn't concentrating.

Reply to
SteveH

Isn't their aim that the hybrid version fill the "slighlty less painful to fuel" market?

Reply to
Clive George

All the reports I've seen on the LS-600h state that it manages about

29.7 mpg, so it's hardly distinguishable from the LS-460.
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.