Is diesel dead?

Robertr

Interesting article from WhatCar?

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=233064

Just did a bit of analysis on my own petrol car versus the similar diesel. The results are that you would have to drive 170,000 kms before you make your money back on the diesel!!! That does not include servicing costs etc...

Car 2.0 FSI Highline 150 BHP
2006 Value €23,000
Price Per Litre 1.24
l/100km 8.5


Car 2.0 TDI Highline 140Bhp
2006 Value €27,950 (Cheapest on Carzone.ie)
Price Per Litre 1.32
l/100km 5.8

Food for thought.

patrickc

Robertr wrote: »

Interesting article from WhatCar?

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=233064

Just did a bit of analysis on my own petrol car versus the similar diesel. The results are that you would have to drive 170,000 kms before you make your money back on the diesel!!! That does not include servicing costs etc...

Car 2.0 FSI Highline 150 BHP
2006 Value €23,000
Price Per Litre 1.24
l/100km 8.5


Car 2.0 TDI Highline 140Bhp
2006 Value €27,950 (Cheapest on Carzone.ie)
Price Per Litre 1.32
l/100km 5.8

Food for thought.

where are you getting diesel at 1.32 i haven'r seen it cheaper than 1.40 lately

Robertr

I just took the AA prices for Feb 08.

patrickc

Robertr wrote: »

I just took the AA prices for Feb 08.

ya may recalculate at 1.40ish a litre now so ,

listermint

What about CO2 output you could be saving with the new tax system. Alot of the diesels ive looked at have much lower CO2 outputs than camparible and smaller petrols....

NinjaTruncs

How can anyone say iesel is dead?
using the l/100km figures you give, diesel would have to be about 40% dearer than petrol based on efficiency alone for it to be considered a bad option. Also with the new VRT rates diesel cars are pretty much the same cost as petrol and will have lower road tax than petrol

Robertr

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

How can anyone say iesel is dead?
using the l/100km figures you give, diesel would have to be about 40% dearer than petrol based on efficiency alone for it to be considered a bad option. Also with the new VRT rates diesel cars are pretty much the same cost as petrol and will have lower road tax than petrol

Not true in my example as you have to account fthe price of the car itself.

I reserve judgement on the new system when I see it in action. I'd be suprised if the manufacturers/dealers don't do something on the price of petrol cars also. It will all come back to supply and demand in the end and the bigger the demand for the diesel cars the more they will charge and the more diesel cars out there the more diesel will cost versus pertol.

I'm not saying that I think diesel is dead but it is definitively a space worth watching.

Zube

Robertr wrote: »

the bigger the demand for the diesel cars the more they will charge

That must be why Audi just lopped €7K off a diesel A6.

Robertr

Zube wrote: »

That must be why Audi just lopped €7K off a diesel A6.

I'm talking long term - everyone knows that new diesels are much cheaper and there will be a big hit on second hand values over the next month or so.

Zube

Zube wrote: »

That must be why Audi just lopped €7K off a diesel A6.

Or perhaps its because its impossible to sell cars so far this year.

bazz26

Lets be clear here.

Car manufacturers are not knocking thousands off the price of their cars. It is the Government who is, by reducing the rate of VRT on the car due to basing the VRT on emmissions rather than engine size. This makes the recommended retail price cheaper or more expensive depending on the car in question.

mickdw

bazz26 wrote: »

Lets be clear here.

Car manufacturers are not knocking thousands off the price of their cars. It is the Government who is, by reducing the rate of VRT on the car due to basing the VRT on emmissions rather than engine size. This makes the recommended retail price cheaper or more expensive depending on the car in question.

Not true either. See new audi a5 1.8T petrol price, vrt reduction = 500 euro. Price reduction come july 4,900 euro just to compete with bmw

Marcus.Aurelius

In response to OP:

Based on a new car price: Yes, it will take some time before you will break even owing to higher initial price vs. higher mpg.

Based on secondhand car price: Diesel (economically speaking) is cheaper in the medium to long term as the difference in price subsides quite a bit.

Stevie Dakota

I find is fascinating that everytime this debate comes up no-one mentions that not only are modern diesels more economical but they offer arguably better performance than their petrol counterparts thanks to bags of torque. Who cares about 0-60 around town, its 50-120 on the motorway that matters.

For me diesel a win win, THAT is why I would pay more for a diesel, not simply the economy.

JHMEG

Stevie Dakota wrote: »

I find is fascinating that everytime this debate comes up no-one mentions that not only are modern diesels more economical but they offer arguably better performance than their petrol counterparts thanks to bags of torque. Who cares about 0-60 around town, its 50-120 on the motorway that matters.

For me diesel a win win, THAT is why I would pay more for a diesel, not simply the economy.

And then someone else comes along and says well petrol cars have gearboxes, and if you're too lazy to change gears you should have bought and automatic, and that drop a cog or two in a petrol and watch the diesel in your rearview mirror...

We've been though this before, loads of times. Petrol is quicker, end of.

Gumbo

patrickc wrote: »

where are you getting diesel at 1.32 i haven'r seen it cheaper than 1.40 lately

1.33 in Harolds Cross

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

And then someone else comes along and says well petrol cars have gearboxes, and if you're too lazy to change gears you should have bought and automatic, and that drop a cog or two in a petrol and watch the diesel in your rearview mirror...

We've been though this before, loads of times. Petrol is quicker, end of.

No.

If you look at E92s posts you will observe that at from july the Focus 1.8TDCI with 115bhp will be cheaper than the 1.4 with 80bhp. The diesel is also more economical by a million miles and cheaper to tax.

There is no contest for normal cars like this.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

No.

If you look at E92s posts you will observe that at from july the Focus 1.8TDCI with 115bhp will be cheaper than the 1.4 with 80bhp. The diesel is also more economical by a million miles and cheaper to tax.

There is no contest for normal cars like this.

Compare a 1.8 diesel versus a similar power petrol, not a 1.8 turbo diesel against a wheezy 1.4 that's an underperformer to begin with!

peasant

JHMEG wrote: »

Compare a 1.8 diesel versus a similar power petrol, not a 1.8 turbo diesel against a wheezy 1.4 that's an underperformer to begin with!

no, no ..not the diesel v petrol thingy again ...

Technically speaking, you're of course right ...but maidhc has a point:

Due to the wonderful tax system now, the smallest petrol is more expensive then the smallest diesel ...so in this case the diesel car clearly wins. (Strictly from a "what should I buy for my money" point of view)

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

Compare a 1.8 diesel versus a similar power petrol, not a 1.8 turbo diesel against a wheezy 1.4 that's an underperformer to begin with!

Why not just compare the Focus against an M3 as we are at it...

If you have 20something k in your pocket then your choice is a 1.8TDCi or a 1.4 Petrol. Even a 1.6 Petrol won't have the beating of the TDCI, you will be heading for a 2.0 petrol.

deRanged

maidhc wrote: »

If you have 20something k in your pocket then your choice is a 1.8TDCi or a 1.4 Petrol.

that's certainly the way I'm thinking, coming from the 1.4 petrol. more likely to go with the 1.6hdci but no matter.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

Why not just compare the Focus against an M3 as we are at it...

Why are you bringing the Focus into it? And now the M3? The OP is looking at similar power petrol and diesel cars. My statements are in relation to those.

Johnny Utah

Alcohol-fuelled cars ftw.

As Homer Simpson said; "one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me, etc":D

NinjaTruncs

JHMEG wrote: »

Compare a 1.8 diesel versus a similar power petrol, not a 1.8 turbo diesel against a wheezy 1.4 that's an underperformer to begin with!

The new Bravo should be around the same price for the 1.4 and the 1.9, both are supposed to output 150Bhp, if Fiat pass on the VRT savings they will both cost around the same, diesel could be upto 1000 dearer, but with the fuel efficieny and lower tax the diesel would be the model to go for.

E92

We've been through this whole thing already, and obviously you'd be mad to choose petrol over diesel when often diesels will only be a small bit dearer than petrols because of the VRT changes, I mean why would anyone choose a 1.4 Focus over the 1.8 TDCi when the 1.8 TDCi gives you more of everything(bar refinement and all those smelly particulates and NOx etc) for less, but that is a completely different thing from saying that diesel is better, because if certainly is not as good as petrol on its own, for too many reasons, which I've outlined many a time here.

Under normal circumstances a petrol is better than a diesel of similar power.

JHMEG

Is diesel dead? - Isn't diesel greener?

Not necessarily, no. Economical diesels (such as the Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion) might have you thinking diesel is the 'greener' fuel.

Yes, petrols usually emit more carbon dioxide (CO2), but diesels pump out more local pollutants such as particulates and carbon monoxide. Both can aggravate respiratory and coronary problems. Nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions are higher, too, and this is linked to allergic reactions and acid rain.

Some modern diesels are fitted with filters that reduce particulate emissions, but these aren't fitted to all cars.

E92

mickdw wrote: »

Not true either.

For the most part it is 100% true though.

Don't tell me that Audi trying to be competitive with BMW is a bad thing either.

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

Is diesel dead? - Isn't diesel greener?

Not necessarily, no. Economical diesels (such as the Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion) might have you thinking diesel is the 'greener' fuel.

Yes, petrols usually emit more carbon dioxide (CO2), but diesels pump out more local pollutants such as particulates and carbon monoxide. Both can aggravate respiratory and coronary problems. Nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions are higher, too, and this is linked to allergic reactions and acid rain.

Some modern diesels are fitted with filters that reduce particulate emissions, but these aren't fitted to all cars.

But, you see, we (as in the General population) don't care. It is completely academic. The fact you drive one car, you look at the price, then you drive the other car, and you look at the price of that. Unless a person has taken leave of their senses, they will buy a diesel in the current climate.

The reason I picked the focus is because I just saw E92s thread before posting, and it is a good example. Basically, my point is you would need to be a fair nutcase to buy a 1.8/2.0 petrol focus over the 1.8TDCI, the extra expense would just make the decision uneconomic. Sure some people will buy niche cars like the ST and forthcoming RS, but these are niche cars.

It is diesel power for the masses.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

But, you see, we (as in the General population) don't care. It is completely academic. The fact you drive one car, you look at the price, then you drive the other car, and you look at the price of that. Unless a person has taken leave of their senses, they will buy a diesel in the current climate.

The reason I picked the focus is because I just saw E92s thread before posting, and it is a good example. Basically, my point is you would need to be a fair nutcase to buy a 1.8/2.0 petrol focus over the 1.8TDCI, the extra expense would just make the decision uneconomic. Sure some people will buy niche cars like the ST and forthcoming RS, but these are niche cars.

It is diesel power for the masses.

Unfortunately you are correct!

E92

Thank you maidhc for finally admitting that the only reason diesel is better is cost thanks to our Government subsidising the price of a more complex and costly fuel type that happens to be better on one emission(CO2), but much worse for all the emissions that are as bad for us as smoking fags are.

At least fags only kill one person, and it is your choice to try and kill yourself faster, while I've no choice in breathing in diesel fumes and neither does anyone else have that choice in being killed faster and having a less healthy life.

zilog_jones

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Alcohol-fuelled cars ftw.

As Homer Simpson said; "one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me, etc":D

If only it were true - drinking pure ethanol tends to induce loss of... life Also, the stuff they sell here (E85) is still around 15% petrol, which ain't too good for you either.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Thank you maidhc for finally admitting that the only reason diesel is better is cost thanks to our Government subsidising the price of a more complex and costly fuel type that happens to be better on one emission(CO2), but much worse for all the emissions that are as bad for us as smoking fags are.

At least fags only kill one person, and it is your choice to try and kill yourself faster, while I've no choice in breathing in diesel fumes and neither does anyone else have that choice in being killed faster and having a less healthy life.

I'm not absolutist one way or the other. I own a petrol and a diesel. Right now Co2 seems to be a huge problem, and the diesel is the lesser of the two evils. Really though I don't care about emissions, I care about what the car is like to drive and how much it costs to buy/run.

mukki

what an annoying thread to read, your like a gang of women bickering

Hagar

I think the future of diesel is bleak purely from a cost point of view.
The Govt takes a huge take rake from both petrol and diesel, not the same take admittedly. With times getting tough and prices rising the average motorist (petrol) will economise where he can, take the odd bus, train, car sharing, whatever. This will affect the tax take to the State. From the Govt. point of view it makes more sense to increase the tax take on those who cannot economise this way ie the commercial hauliers, 99% diesel. It's what has happened in the Britain and the Irish Govt have never been slow to take up any new idea which brings in taxes. The motorist in his diesel car will be caught up in this and end up paying a higher price for fuel than his petrol counterpart.

GG66

Robertr wrote: »

Interesting article from WhatCar?

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=233064

The results are that you would have to drive 170,000 kms before you make your money back on the diesel!!!

I'd have more confidence of doing 170,000 kms in a diesel than a petrol and I intend to.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

I'm not absolutist one way or the other.

That must be a new word?!

maidhc wrote:

Really though I don't care about emissions

Are you a smoker? What did you think of smoking in pubs?

peasant

JHMEG wrote: »

Are you a smoker? What did you think of smoking in pubs?

No, no, no ...not the smoking ban. Stick with the topic at hand.

barryfitz

GG66 wrote: »

I'd have more confidence of doing 170,000 kms in a diesel than a petrol and I intend to.

95 1.3 corolla 184000 MILES so far. No Propultion components ever replaced (me touches all the wood around me):p
I think that kind of negates your point.

Marcus.Aurelius

barryfitz wrote: »

95 1.3 corolla 184000 MILES so far. No Propultion components ever replaced (me touches all the wood around me):p
I think that kind of negates your point.

Doubt you can beat some of the Carina E turbodiesels (slow though they may be) with >500,000 miles on them.

Was in a taxi recently with 585,000 miles on the way, 1994 Carina E, and the other week was in an old merc 300D taxi with 320,000 miles.

barryfitz

il probably be an old man by the time I clock up 500000 miles on her so if I remember what a computer is il let you know whether she can do it or not.

E92

Funnily enough it's actually petrol cars that are more durable these days on the whole, a lot of common rail diesels give injector problems and that leaves you with a bill of over €1000. Some diesels like BMW's have turbo failures as well. Though there are examples of both types that are troublesome and good, but in general petrols seem to be more durable.

As for CO2 maidhc I completely agree that this, and other Governments have decided that it is the big issue, but in reality the Earth has been cooling down in recent times, even though we're polluting more CO2 than ever before, so why are we getting worried about that instead of our own well being, apart from the fact that it will save us money to buy something that has a lower CO2 rating?

Oil is meant to be hitting $150 a barrel before July btw.

As petrols get more and more efficient, and they are thanks to VAG and BMW with direct injection and forced induction, petrols will start increasing their power advantage and crucially claw back a lot of the lost ground on CO2 emissions, which are directly related to fuel consumption, so the tide will start to turn in favour of petrol once again, in fact it already has in countries like Germany.

zilog_jones

Regardless of environmental concerns, surely CO2 emissions are a better way of comparing cars for taxation purposes than engine size? Considering engines are generally getting bigger yet increasing in efficiency i.e. they aren't really worse in any respect compared to their predecessors, I think the new system is justified. It's the next best thing to just taxing fuel IMO.

Marcus.Aurelius: I thought the Carina E diesels were naturally aspirated?

E92

Don't get me wrong, CO2 based taxation is much better than cc based, at least it makes the distinction between cars that are actually more fuel efficient and will in time get rid of Irish specials like a 1.6 Avensis, Mondeo etc, all I'm arguing is that focusing on CO2 alone and ignoring all the ill affects of diesel power is highly irresponsible at best and playing with peoples' lives at worst.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, CO2 based taxation is much better than cc based, at least it makes the distinction between cars that are actually more fuel efficient and will in time get rid of Irish specials like a 1.6 Avensis, Mondeo etc, all I'm arguing is that focusing on CO2 alone and ignoring all the ill affects of diesel power is highly irresponsible at best and playing with peoples' lives at worst.

But I think the point is the scientific community have pretty much decided that co2 is a massive problem, and one far bigger than particulates, for now at least. Maybe this will change, but I don't see any grounds right now to say that promoting low co2 cars is somehow wrong.

Bee

E92 wrote: »

Funnily enough it's actually petrol cars that are more durable these days on the whole, a lot of common rail diesels give injector problems and that leaves you with a bill of over €1000. Some diesels like BMW's have turbo failures as well. Though there are examples of both types that are troublesome and good, but in general petrols seem to be more durable.

As for CO2 maidhc I completely agree that this, and other Governments have decided that it is the big issue, but in reality the Earth has been cooling down in recent times, even though we're polluting more CO2 than ever before, so why are we getting worried about that instead of our own well being, apart from the fact that it will save us money to buy something that has a lower CO2 rating?

Oil is meant to be hitting $150 a barrel before July btw.

As petrols get more and more efficient, and they are thanks to VAG and BMW with direct injection and forced induction, petrols will start increasing their power advantage and crucially claw back a lot of the lost ground on CO2 emissions, which are directly related to fuel consumption, so the tide will start to turn in favour of petrol once again, in fact it already has in countries like Germany.

I have personally seen a certain major motoring organisations itemised breakdown figures and what you say is simply not true. Diesel engined cars are way ahead in reliability over their petrol counterparts.

I do agree with you as regards costly repairs if someone is unfortunate enough to suffer a major fault but the figures show that diesel engines have less failures and lower maintenance costs by far

The reason diesel is more efficient is because it contains more energy than petrol with an advantage of 30%

I do agree we are going to see some interesting petrol engines with diesel characteristics but my guess is the future will be hybrids

The earth is warming as it always has had a variable climate, the average impact of mankinds Co2 is nothing as bad as the EcoNuts proclaim

Co2 is a benign gas that constitutes only 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere. At worst mankind is responsible for 4% of 0.04%! A whole lot of zeros and the rest is Natures, the tiny end result is reduced by another huge factor because as the climatologists on the UN's politically biased IPCC comittee have been forced to show and as anyone with a decent undertanding of climatology knows, the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. the best science shows it has 30 times the impact of the other major greenhouse gas, Methane.

The total worldwide C02 emissions by mankind is only 0.15% of all of the greenhouse gases.

The man made "Global Warming" industry spurned on by highly theoretical research by climate experts combined with the politically biased non scientific "summarisers" in the UN's IPCC attempts to say mankind is the only one responsible for climate change, utter non scientific bollocks!

The Global Warming nutters have ignored the historical record of Earth's past warmings that bears has no relationship with the scientific information that is freely available

anyone see some info on the Opel insignia ( the replacment for the Vectra) new engine, its supposed to use compression ignition like a diesel up to 3000rpm and then spark ignition kicks in after that?

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

Thank you maidhc for finally admitting that the only reason diesel is better ..

I still dont understand why you two (and you know the who the other one is ) insist on making everything black and white. How can petrol(/diesel) be "better". That would imply its greater in most if not all areas you can measure. It isnt, because such a thing is impossible.

Petrol
Higher BHP, faster top speed, faster on small cars and lighter engines which leads to lighter cars and all the benefits it brings.
It has less torque (retarded gear comments ignored, come on guys, pub talk for the pub please)
Lower economy despite an order of magniture more engines and research
Slower 0-60 and general performance on heavy vehicles (see A8 4.2 TDI vs 4.2 Petrol)
Great exhaust note
Faster 0-60 on small to mid range cars, generally
Higher engine temp output is harder on other components (ie Turbos)
Enviromental, concerns bad for planet, better for humans.

Diesel
Torque king - general feeling of performance due to more instant acceleration. Faster overall on heavy vehicles
Low RPM orientated powerband is easier drive around towns, backroads etc
Better fuel economy and lower Carbon footprint
Can run Veg Oil and Biodiesel
Few performance engines, only BMW Twin Turbo, VAG V10 and V12 TDI, all of which could be considered only first attempts.
500BHP (750 ft/lbs Torque) V12 TDI shows the potiential for massive performance and still returns 23mpg on 2.5ton cars.
Enviromental concerns, bad for humans, better for planet.
Cheaper to buy (dont care why...) eg TT TDI version

E92

maidhc wrote: »

I don't see any grounds right now to say that promoting low co2 cars is somehow wrong.

No, but saying that because a car is good on just one emission that it somehow is green is similarly equally wrong.

If diesel is so hunky dory then why can't manufacturers make diesels that are clean enough for sale in the US, which ironically has the toughest emission standards of anywhere in the world?

The answer is simple; the manufacturers have achieved a massive hoodwink when it comes to promoting cars that are supposedly cleaner over here, and the key word is supposedly, because petrol always has and still is greener than diesel, by quite some margin too.

@MattSimis: you ignored many of the other benefits of petrol, but here they are:

:cheaper to build than diesel
:smoother in my experience
:quieter(yes they still are)
:per unit consumed produces roughly 11.5% lower CO2 emissions than diesel by that I mean a 50 mpg petrol is no worse for our carbon footprint than a diesel that does 56.5 mpg
:less complex
:can be adapted to run on bio ethanol up to and including E100, LPG, CNG, and even hydrogen
:lighter, therefore they're better to drive and are more carbon friendly to build

Bee wrote: »

anyone see some info on the Opel insignia ( the replacment for the Vectra) new engine, its supposed to use compression ignition like a diesel up to 3000rpm and then spark ignition kicks in after that?

That engine won't be coming till early in the next decade, but it will burn petrol as efficiently as diesel does, it can get as much energy out of the fuel as a diesel engines can, and Merc are also developing something similar, Merc call it "DiesOtto" while GM are calling it HCCI(Homogeneous Charge Compression Injection) and as the name suggests it combines the combustion processes of both petrol and diesel engines, but the main thing is that it actually runs on petrol;)!

The other big benefit of HCCI is that NOx and PM are lower than even a conventional petrol, and don't even need a catalytic converter to deal with these pollutants, and CO and HC are no worse than a standard petrol engine(though they are nothing like as bad as PM, NOx and CO2 are).

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

(and you know the who the other one is )

Me me me, please, pick me!

Matt Simis wrote: »

It has less torque (retarded gear comments ignored, come on guys, pub talk for the pub please)

This shows your whole misunderstanding of reality. "Peak torque" means nothing when you have a gearbox.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Higher engine temp output is harder on other components (ie Turbos)

Huh? 10:1 compression in a petrol vs 25:1 in a diesel.. tell me which is harder, requiring diesels to be overbuilt.

Matt Simis wrote: »

Low RPM orientated powerband is easier drive around towns, backroads etc

Not this again. A 2.0L petrol will do the same. If you don't like changing gears get an automatic.

A lot of the rest is true, or just not too badly wrong. I've only corrected the worst bits.

JHMEG

maidhc wrote: »

I don't see any grounds right now to say that promoting low co2 cars is somehow wrong.

Back in the 1950s they said the same about smoking.



I think they found out later they were kinda wrong about that one.

copacetic

Matt Simis wrote: »

Cheaper to buy (dont care why...) eg TT TDI version

Not true, the diesel of most cars is still dearer that the petrol equivalent, i.e you are saying the TT TDI is cheaper than the petrol? It isn't.

The 1.8T is cheaper that the TT TDI by a fair bit, and since diesel is dearer than petrol you never make the money back unless doing tens of thousands of miles a year.

Same with bmw 320i v 320d, the diesel has gotten much cheaper than it was and is arguably better, but isn't cheaper or anyway near as cheap as the petrol.

JHMEG

Bee wrote: »

Diesel engined cars are way ahead in reliability over their petrol counterparts.

Top 3 most reliable cars, by number of warranty claims
1. Honda Accord
2. Subaru Forester
3. MX-5

Ahem, eh, none of these models feature a diesel engine.