I always went for diesel in the past, but now, with it being so much more expensive than petrol, am i better going with petrol instead? I.e. instead of a ford focus 1.8 diesel, buy a 1.4 petrol?
Any opinions?
Steve
I've always had petrol cars, and last year bought a diesel 406 HDi. Diesels are much quieter and more powerful than they used to be (although if you're talking 1.8 Focus then that might be the old TDDI engine), but the dual mass flywheels cost a lot to replace when they inevetably go wrong.
In my book, even though I've done 15000 miles in the 406 since I bought it last May, the few quid saved at the pumps isn't worth the potential for big bills, noise and lack of power, and I'm talking about a car with the 110 engine, which I had chipped to 135bhp and was still slow...
I would suspect that in terms of total cost of ownership, doing lots of miles, the diesel is cheaper to run even if the dual mass flywheel blows up on you, but I'd much rather pay a few more quid every week, have a more pleasant car to drive, and not risk a big bill coming out of the blue.
As PeteM says, the 1.4 Focus isn't brilliant - although I'd say that they're not *that* bad compared with some alternatives. I'd take a 1.4 Focus over a
1.4 Golf any day. The 1.6 is leagues better for the majority of people and the 1.8 feels much pokier. The 2.0 feels like a slightly quicker 1.8 but is quite a bit thirstier.But going back on topic, what's better depends on lots of factors. Looking at some numbers in my Datasheet, over 12,000 miles, putting unleaded in at
86.9p per litre and diesel in at 98.9p per litre, then taking into account the fuel costs, extrapolated service costs and VED, comparing the 2003 Focus 1.4 and 1.8 TDDi, the 1.4 petrol will cost an estimated £1,320 and the diesel, £1,358.I'd rather drive the 1.8 diesel over and above the 1.4 petrol but it will be slightly dearer to run.
And again as PeteM says, the above excludes the possibility of something expensive breaking and needing to be fixed.
I went through this exercise last summer. I decided I wanted a Saab 9-3 Sports Saloon. Then it was the choice between the 1.8 petrol, 1.9 TiD or the 2.0 petrol turbos. I'll cut to the chase as I tested almost all mechanical specifications available. ;-) What put me off the 1.9 TiD models is their reputation for occasional mechanical or sensor problems, which are expensive to fix. So I bought a petrol model because when I'd drive it, it would be dearer than the TiD, but it had a much lower change of needing something horribly expensive to replace.
Although I'm moderately certain it has a dual mass flywheel anyway heh..!
So did you buy the 1.8 with 2.0 engine, or the 2.0 with 2.0 engine?
It doesn't have 2x bigger bangs that make the high torque fluctuations that rip DMFs apart (or not so quick).
You should meet my friend Mr. Murphy, who likes to appear a few months after these sorts of conversations...
The only 9-3 with a 1.8 is the naturally aspirated 1.8; the 1.8t has the low pressure 2.0 Ecotec donk. The 2.0t has a higher pressure 2.0, the 2.0T has the high output 2.0 heh.
This 2.0 is described as a short stroke 2.2 Ecotec from the Vauxhall / GM Ecotec range with a Saab head, turbocharger, valve gear. Doesn't make that much sense to me. It's a typical Saab square engine design, 86 by 86 as I remember.
*geeky*As I remember, mine has the B207E engine. 150 bhp, 177 lbsft, called a
1.8t. So badged presumably to compete with the VAG 1.8T.The B207L has the 175 bhp, 195 lbsft engine and is called the 2.0t. Engine wise it's identical to mine apart from the ECU coding. It has uprated drivetrain components though - most obvious from the six speed manual or automatic transmission, but it also has tougher driveshafts.
The B207R is the HOT with 210 bhp, 221 lbsft. Wears a different turbocharger and has different valvegear and is only fitted to the Aero.
The Hirsch upgrade available from Saab that doesn't kill the warranty puts the B207E or B207L up to 195 bhp, 229 lbsft
So the 1.8 suddenly becomes 2.0 :) I think man in street don't know and continue to refer to the 1.8 as an 1.8L
Yes. Just as a whole bunch of people think the later 6-cylinder 320i and
520i cars have a 2.0 I6 engine and it's a 2.2. Or a variety of Mercedes Benz models. Or... you get the idea.It's never bothered me. The 2.0 B205 fitted to the 9-5 has similar power and torque but is called a 2.0t...
But the heavier 9-5 2.0t is quoted with a 9.0 sec 0-60 time. Odd!
Ford used to have a system where the lowest powered car in a range simply didn't display the litre capacity on the boot, presumably that made the rep feel less humiliated... Like the 1.3L Capri (56bhp?), although this did appear on some of the cars.
It's only slightly quicker, though, depending on who tests the machine. The
9-3 Sports Saloon 1.8t can hit 62 (not 60) in second gear and I imagine the 9-5 is the same.Maybe; quite common to have no badge either.
If you're concerned about getting performance out of the BMW diesel to match the petrol equivalent (or any other diesel motor for that matter), you can usually rechip them and improve the power a bit. These guys sell the Diesel tuning boxes:
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.