Diesels

Hardly silly.

Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current fuel prices.

That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing power delivery etc.

See above.

A couple of months ago I asked on his newsgroup about what car I should buy to replace my ageing Astra diesel estate.

A number of people suggested I could do a lot worse than the Ford focus, so I wound up with an 02 reg 1.8 TDCI diesel estate, and although I am still getting used to it I have to admit that so far been very impressed by both the performance and mpg.

Yup. Run em on chip fat.

To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too much of a compromise.

All fuel prices look silly. Some just marginally more silly than others.

Yes, with a caveat that it depends on your mileage. If you cover 5,000 miles a year it's almost certainly not worth it. 10,000 miles, maybe not either.

My 20,000 miles a year means it is borderline to run a diesel or not. As it happens I opted for diesel for a bunch of reasons, one of these being lower fuel bills. I also prefer the noise and, more normal, the way it drives and less frequent fuel stops. Add to this mix the lower insurance costs and I'm set.

I was considering one of the small capacity, small car turbodiesels (think: Yaris 1.4 DI-D, Fiesta 1.4 TDCi, Peugeot 206 1.4 HDi) for their silly low fuel consumption but didn't in the end because their high purchase price would take years to make up compared to a mid-range petrol model at my mileage.

Agreed, my Nissan 2.2dci at136ps is now giving around the 50mpg mark, the old 25 in the garage with the L series lump has been known to get up to

70mpg with a light foot.

I did once roughly work out that based on the relative differences between diesel and petrol, there would need to be at least a 10p per litre difference before the merits of diesel were cancelled out. That was 6 years ago when I took my first diesel so what it is now with newer technology?

Agreed, the power delivery when needed is good, add to that the technology tricks such as uprated ECU design, variable vane turbo, common rail etc., it has never been a better time to drive a diesel. I'm also aware that research shows that emissons from a diesel reman constant throughout it's life, whereas the petrol engine emissons get worse with age, far worse than a diesel in fact. Add to that that a diesel will run on just about any combustable heavy oil (bio) unlike petrol, I'm sold.

PDH

Yes. If the emissions nonsense :) was removed from the Isuzu / General Motors 2.2 donk under the Saab's bonnet it'd be recording better fuel consumption figures.

Possibly not much different if you mean fuel consumption. New diesel technology has mostly been about maintaining the fuel efficiency but making 'em quieter and faster... :) Some diesel merits are hard to quantify in currency terms. Being able to turn up the boost, over-fuel and leave people gasping for breath in a cloud of particulates is priceless. :-p

Hmm. With the exception of a variable geometry turbocharger, the rest of it the above developments don't materially change how the donk feels to drive, merely other funkiness like noise, efficiency and rattling. Balancer shafts are useful things, improved noise insulation, "smart" engine mounts, that sort of thing.

Heh. I find that refusing to argue with tree-hugging, anti-diesel protestors is more frustrating for them than actually arguing!

Careful: some will, some won't. Some are tolerant of a proportion of biodiesel and some sulk and stop working...

The message from snipped-for-privacy@italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) contains these words:

Till the autobox died I was getting that from a tonne and half of 2.5 Audi diesel. I have yet to see what I get from the 1.8 TD Mundane I bought yesterday to replace it.

How much is a clutch on a Mundane?

Lol, Chuckle Chuckle, your a safer bet than lottery Conor.

Pity Ladrookes weren't taking bets on who would be the first to post that little gem. I'd have made a mint.

I can imagine you calling in the chippy.....

Fish n Chips please.... and while I'm here stick a couple of gallon of fat in the tank.

Argh!! my jaw is aiching I'm laughinmg that much.

-- Zozzer

Yes, but then you two probably have wildly different driving styles. Vehicle weights will be similar, and you don't specify the age of the Audi. If it's older than the 2005 model there's a good chance it won't have anything like as much as the emissions gubbins.

Mine struggled to return outside of the 40 to 50 point, so, I guess about the same.

Over similar driving the Saab is slightly more economical, say, it'll be returning 48 - 50 whereas the Mondeo would have been returning 43 to 46.

A lot to have it done for you...

No-one forces anyone buy high performane diesel or to drive with lead boots on.

I'm very happy with......

55mpg from my Astra 1.9Dti Estate 30mpg from my Autosleeper Motorohome (Peugot Boxer 2.0Hdi)

I'll certainly never buy another petrol engined vehicle.

-- Zozzer

Well Im getting about 35 from a Nissan Navara driven sensibly, thats better than a lot of standard euro-box saloons. In fact, driven sensibly is probably better than most of the cars zooming past me at 90mph on the motorway while I stick to around 60 or 70.

Steve

Oops !!! Typo Error Alert .......

My Astra is a 1.7Dti not a 1.9

Zozzer

That's because, from about the turn of the century, demand has encouraged manufacturers to make them like that. Why make basic, cheap, low margin cars for a skinflints when you can have high performance, high margin compact executives flying out the door with as many high margin extras loaded on as possible. Car manufacturers need to make money and not many do.

Get used to it..fossil fuels aren't getting made any more.

The answer is in your observations. If you want torque (and power these days) plus better mpg, get a diesel. That's the argument I used way back in 2001.

The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that there's no performance advantage.

Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?

Reminds me of the great Yellowstone park trick, running the tour busses on oil from the Kentucky. They were seeing a hell of a lot more bears while they were using it.

PDH

As others have said, depends on your mileage, also how new the vehicle you're buying is. I drive ten year old bangers where the difference in price between a petrol and diesel variant is maybe a hundred quid, which rapidly pays for itself, e.g. I'm on my fourth vehicle with a 1527cc TUD5 Peugeot engine and it returns 55mpg almost regardless of how/where you drive it. Just squeezes into the cheap tax bracket too. Dunno what the consumption of the equivalent 1.0L petrol is but I imagine the diesel pays for itself in

3-6 months. And then you've got the better reliability (no HT, no carb) and longevity of the engine which is a major bonus in a ten year old car. Usually with a TUD5 powered car, the car dies around the still perfectly healthy engine (or rusts around the engine in the case of the Metros they put this engine in :-)

I notice that some of the petrol engines seem to be catching up though, I recall they were advertising a 60mpgish figure for the current Suzuki Alto when that came out, presumably that's not a combined figure?

Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.

That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number of cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker and more economical! ;)

How about:

1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in 17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg. 2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.

1983 Saab 900 Turbo, 123 mph, 8.9 seconds to 60 and ~25 mpg.

2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T, 137 mph, 8.0 seconds to 62 and ~36 mpg.

That's the 175 bhp 2.0 turbo engine and not the 2.0 Aero. The "1.8t" (150 bhp 2.0 turbo) 9-3 manages 131 mph, 9.0 seconds to 62 mph and 37 mpg. It's as quick (8.9 seconds to 60, 9.0 seconds to 62, close enough).

1983 BMW 323i, 125 mph, 8.1 seconds to 60 and ~31 mpg. 2007 BMW 3-Series with the 2.2 I6 engine. 140 mph, 7.7s to 62 mph and ~32 mpg.

If you're returning just over the official combined cycle in the 1.5 106, you'd be looking at around 45 mpg from the 0.95 litre base model.

If unleaded costs 84p per litre and diesel is 90p per litre... by my quick and dirty calculations the 106 diesel will cost you around 7p per mile and the petrol 9p per mile. So call it five thousand miles....

And it sounds better, and it comes with a five speed - it'll be quieter at speed.

There are *huge* numbers of petrol cars that manage over 60 to the gallon over the Extra Urban figure... the only petrol cars I know about that are officially capable of sixty to the gallon are either hybrids or the Smart City Coupes.

All volkswagons are underpowered these days. Some of the smaller engines in the Polo and Golf in particular are pathetic. I wouldnt buy one, espesially with the price premium.