Is Diesel now a waste of time?

Sizzler

Well diesel drivers, presumably the majority bought it for its economic superpowers...but that ship has now sailed

Back to petrol anybody?

If this continues will the dealers drop the daysel prices?! They might have to as I cant see the Irish consumer going for them anymore........unless you live along the border ahem!

niceirishfella

Diesel is still a winner for many who do maybe 30k plus per annum on the road.

if you only did 10 to 12k, there really a good argument to go back to petrol i guess.

Riskymove

depends on the car really

certain new cars on the new system will be cheaper in diesel and also much cheaper tax so those savings may cover cost of the higher pump price

Stevie Dakota

Nooooooooo! No more diesel threads please!!!!!

I hope diesel dies. Everyone driving around in Diesel cars pushes the price of it up for the really imporant things. Heating fuel, haulage, electricity generation etc.

Matt Simis

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310080&highlight=diesel+dead

Given current fuel prices, your diesel car has to give aleast 15% greater fuel economy than an (equivelent) petrol to equalise the costs of fueling it. This of course doesnt take into account whatever extra the diesel car cost you to begin with, which isnt much of an issue on certain new cars, but is likely substantial for 99% of the cars on the roads.

leeroybrown

Perhaps we need a sticky called "NOTHING HAS CHANGED. DIESEL IS STILL CHEAPER IF YOU DRIVE BIG MILES. OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO GET DEARER. DUH!".

pburns

I was just about to start a thread on this myself. According to the 9OClock news diesel refineries can't keep up with demand, hence the price rises. There will be pressure on government to reduce VAT on diesel (which AFAIK is higher than that on petrol?) but the medium-term trend seems to be towards increased diesel costs.

So the pendulum swings again. Petrol & diesels now similar cost to buy but the latter no longer an advantage at the pumps. Strange times we live in...

So what we need is a low CO2/high bhp petrol engine with good economy...

Sizzler

leeroybrown wrote: »

OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO GET DEARER. DUH!.

So presumably you posted this from your yacht in the mediterranean after you made your millions of $ by buying up barrells of oil when they were at $80 a pop :rolleyes:

Biro

Water is the fuel of the future!

Mc-BigE

Biro wrote: »

Water is the fuel of the future!

what happens when we run out of that;)

leeroybrown

Sizzler wrote: »

So presumably you posted this from your yacht in the mediterranean after you made your millions of $ by buying up barrells of oil when they were at $80 a pop :rolleyes:

Well given the continued rapid industrialisation of China and India, the strong move towards diesel cars across Europe and the emerging availability of quality low-sulphur diesel in the US, it's been inevitable that demand would rise sharply. The world oil production economy has always tilted towards petrol and oil companies have show a reluctance to invest in process changes to tilt it back the other way. Processed diesel actually contains over 15% more 'oil' (specifically more energy providing hydrocarbon bonds) per unit volume than petrol. So, yes, I think it was inevitable that diesel prices would out strip those for petrol.

r3nu4l

Biro wrote: »

Water is the fuel of the future!

Honda seem to think Hydrogen is the way to go.

Q_Ball

Mc-BigE wrote: »

what happens when we run out of that;)

We'll have found a way of turning oil to water

E92

pburns wrote: »

So what we need is a low CO2/high bhp petrol engine with good economy...

Which BMW and VAG already offer with their direct injection petrols.

VAG's new 2.0 TFSI in the A4 is a case in point. On paper the best 4 pot engine out there IMO. 211 bhp, 258 lb ft of torque and all that torque at only 1500 rpm, lower than even the most powerful version of the all new 2.0 TDI from VAG which has only 170 bhp(and I thought diesel runs rings around petrol folks? Oh wait I forgot that that is just a figment of the diesel fanboy's imaginations, sorry about that) and also has 258 lb ft but it doesn't deliver the 258 lb ft until 1750 rpm, and only keeps producing that until 2500 rpm, meanwhile the 2.0 TFSI keeps twisting 258 lb ft of torque all the way from 1500 rpm up to 4500 rpm.

You might think that there is a price to pay for this superior performance from the petrol engine in terms of economy and emissions, but the 2.0 TFSI manages to pollute just 14 g/km more CO2 than the diesel, quite staggering really.

If we had more of these kind of petrol engines about it would take the sheen off diesel engines very, very quickly.

Keith186

Matt Simis wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055310080&highlight=diesel+dead

Given current fuel prices, your diesel car has to give aleast 15% greater fuel economy than an (equivelent) petrol to equalise the costs of fueling it. This of course doesnt take into account whatever extra the diesel car cost you to begin with, which isnt much of an issue on certain new cars, but is likely substantial for 99% of the cars on the roads.

I think it's supposed to be this way:
Diesel is more economical in an average car once it does not cost 15% more than petrol does.

Or is that the same thing???

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Mc-BigE wrote: »

what happens when we run out of that;)

/me puts on mad-max outfit:p

E92

The new VRT laws make it very difficult even for me to justify choosing a petrol over a diesel for most cars. The residuals that diesels have always enjoyed over petrols will be further boosted because of the lower purchase price and lower road tax.

The cost of choosing petrol in terms of how sale proof a lot of petrol cars will be after July means it is very hard to choose one over diesel.

I mean why would you pay more for a Focus 1.4 with 80 bhp than a 1.8 TDCi with 115? Or why would you save €240 by going for a 1.6 Avensis instead of going for a diesel when you'll save €310 from the road tax man every year and get the proper hydraulic power steering as well as similar power to the 1.8?

Mailman

It'll be very hard to justify the 1.3 litre Diesel Fiat 500 or Panda over the new 900cc petrol which will arrive next year. It'll be in the same CO2 bracket; the lowest, cheaper to buy, near as powerful, as economical and over 100 KGs lighter.

E92

Is that the twin cylinder model Mailman?

Anyone got any idea what a 2 cylinder car sounds like? I presume it is horrible to drive, 4 cylinders are coarse, 3 cylinders have all the smoothness of a country road in Wesht Cork, so 2 cylinders must be horrific altogether?

Mailman

E92 wrote: »

Is that the twin cylinder model Mailman?

Anyone got any idea what a 2 cylinder car sounds like? I presume it is horrible to drive, 4 cylinders are coarse, 3 cylinders have all the smoothness of a country road in Wesht Cork, so 2 cylinders must be horrific altogether?

from what I've read their SGE engine is fully counter-balanced to minimise the coarseness but any engine under a triple is inherently coarse so I don't expect the twin-cylinder to be the most refined motor ever created. It'll probably be worse/less pleasant that the 1242cc Fire engine which is quite a pleasant engine but it might have more character to it to compensate.
I've read discussions on this engine and they are fighting physics with a twin-cylinder to get it through a four stroke otto cycle but they will make it work.

E92

I wish them luck, because only 2 cylinders means there is no power stroke half the time from the engine. Or else there can be but then the firing is wrong(a la motorbikes). A 3 cylinder engine doesn't have a power stroke 1/3rd of the time. A 4 cylinder has a power stroke the whole time but it doesn't over lap. When one cylinder has finished its power stroke then at that exact second another cylinder take over and thus keeps the power strokes going. Straight 5, 6 and above have a continuous power stroke but they overlap, because there are more cylinders, so when one cylinder is finished its power stroke another cylinder will have started off beforehand. The more cylinders there are the earlier this process can occur. A cylinder has a power stroke every 180 deg(out of 720). So that's where I'm getting this thing about them overlapping. For a 5 pot 720/5 = 144, so 180 - 144 = 36, so 36 degrees before one cylinder has finished, the other has started, and so on and so forth. For a straight 6, 720 / 6 = 120, so for 60 degrees they can overlap. For a 4 pot, we have 720/4 =180, so that's why 4 pots don't have overlapping power strokes, for 3 pots 720/3 = 240, so every 180 degrees of a power stroke is followed by 60 degrees of nothing.

Does anyone know what type of engine those motorbikes that make half an effort to sound like a V8 are? Because if they are 2 pots then FIAT had better make one that sounds that good:D!

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

The new VRT laws make it very difficult even for me to justify choosing a petrol over a diesel for most cars. The residuals that diesels have always enjoyed over petrols will be further boosted because of the lower purchase price and lower road tax.

The cost of choosing petrol in terms of how sale proof a lot of petrol cars will be after July means it is very hard to choose one over diesel.

Though thankfully, not always the case. Regarding the new Audi A5 I have been recommending the new 2.0 petrol to friends and family:

A5 2.0 TFSI (211BHP Petrol) EUR51k RRP and EUR290 Tax a year
A5 2.7 TDI (190BHP Diesel) at EUR54k RRP and EUR430 Tax.

The petrol is cheaper to buy, run, tax and has the same(ish) MPG and faster 0-60, its a no brainer. A straight no frills aftermark remap on the TFSI puts it in the 260BHP ballpark, where the old B5 S4 was, seriously cool. :cool:

peasant

E92 wrote: »

Does anyone know what type of engine those motorbikes that make half an effort to sound like a V8 are? Because if they are 2 pots then FIAT had better make one that sounds that good:D!

The bikes are called Harley Davidson :rolleyes: and have a V twin between some 800 to 1300 cc, depending on model

Ever driven or heard a Citroen 2CV? Two cylinder boxer, asthmatic but very driveable and not too bad sounding either

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp2kSiukw4

and here's your "60 degrees of nothing", some Harley fans invest thousands into making them actually audible

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuGqSfJQ7Y

E92

That engine is on paper at least the best 4 cylinder engine out there Matt Simis by a country mile. I hope we see more petrols out there like that. We need more petrols like that. Then we'll see if diesel is still "better";)!

In the 2.7 TDI's favour though is the fact it has 6 cylinders. I think I might have mentioned it before that I much prefer 6 cylinder engine noise to 4:).

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

That engine is on paper at least the best 4 cylinder engine out there Matt Simis by a country mile. I hope we see more petrols out there like that. We need more petrols like that. Then we'll see if diesel is still "better";)!

In the 2.7 TDI's favour though is the fact it has 6 cylinders. I think I might have mentioned it before that I much prefer 6 cylinder engine noise to 4:).

Shh you and this better talk! Preferring a TDI 6cylinder vs 4pot Petrol sound... I think I detect some dry wit

vectra

E92 wrote: »

Anyone got any idea what a 2 cylinder car sounds like?

Horrible isnt the word :rolleyes:

Fiat had a twin cylinder car years ago. I remember the bloody things well :pac:

Have a read >> FIAT 126 <<

BostonB

Buying a new diesel is one thing. Personally I think the 2nd hand prices of some diesels especially the VAG is over the top. People are still looking for top money for diesels with 100k+ . Unless you are doing mega miles there really isn't any point 2nd hand, as the smaller petrol will be cheaper to tax and insure, cheaper to buy and far less miles on the clock.

Matt Simis

Keith186 wrote: »

I think it's supposed to be this way:
Diesel is more economical in an average car once it does not cost 15% more than petrol does.

Or is that the same thing???

I dunno what you mean by supposed to be, but what Im saying is that the fuel costs 15% more, so straight off the bat your Diesel whatever has to get 15% more mpg to equalise with petrol. That is fairly achievable (with any half way decent diesel), but it should be noted and not excluded when looking at raw mpg figures.

Obviously in the past the mpg was higher and the fuel cheaper/same, which was a double win. Its unlikely that will happen again.

vectra

Matt Simis wrote: »

I dunno what you mean by supposed to be, but what Im saying is that the fuel costs 15% more, so straight off the bat your Diesel whatever has to get 15% more mpg to equalise with petrol. That is fairly achievable (with any half way decent diesel), but it should be noted and not excluded when looking at raw mpg figures.

Obviously in the past the mpg was higher and the fuel cheaper/same, which was a double win. Its unlikely that will happen again.

I dont do many miles but here is an example of savings i am having after going diesel.

My last car : 02 Mondeo 1.8 Zetec Petrol
€25 per week if I was lucky

New car : SEAT Cordoba 1.4 TDIs
€10 per week MAX doing the same miles and toroughly enjoying the Turbo and Torque

Saving me €15 Per week in the pocket

along with that,
I am saving almost €500 per year on tax and insurance.
Call it €10 per week
theres my diesel covered so now my savings are €25 per week :cool:
Not bad and having a new car against a 6 year old one.
No more NCT
2 yr warranty etc.
Nice

unkel

vectra wrote: »

theres my diesel covered so now my savings are €25 per week :cool:
Not bad and having a new car against a 6 year old one

€15 a week is a significant saving on its own in fuel and you are saving another €10 a week in tax and insurance, but you don't seem to be taking into account depreciation?

The depreciation on your old '02 Mondeo is maybe €20 a week and going down. The depreciation on your small new Seat is maybe €80 a week. So all in all it's costing you several thousand euro MORE a year to run a small new car compared to running a slightly older big car

vectra

unkel wrote: »

but you don't seem to be taking into account depreciation?

Bought the Mondeo and kept it for over 2 years.
Clocked up only 12k on it while I had it and without a shadow of a doubt it was cleaner when I traded it in than when I bought it.
Depreciation ? :rolleyes:

I actually only had it for 126 weeks.
Paid €16 k for it.

Got €7.6k for it as a trade in which we all know is not what I actually got for it.

Do the maths and tell me which I stand to lose most cash on ?

Zube

vectra wrote: »

Do the maths and tell me which I stand to lose most cash on ?

You lost €8400 in 126 weeks = €66 per week, but you already lost that. It wasn't losing €66 a week when you traded it, more like the €20 Unkel quoted.

SEAT cordoba 80bhp diesel is €18K, you'll lose €9K over 3 years, = €57 a week. Less the €20 the Mondeo was dropping, less the €25 fuel/tax/insurance saving, you're getting a new car for €12 a week, assuming you didn't borrow the cash to change.

unkel

Zube wrote: »

but you already lost that.

Yep that was exactly my point

vectra

Zube wrote: »

You lost €8400 in 126 weeks = €66 per week, but you already lost that. It wasn't losing €66 a week when you traded it, more like the €20 Unkel quoted.

SEAT cordoba 80bhp diesel is €18K, you'll lose €9K over 3 years, = €57 a week. Less the €20 the Mondeo was dropping, less the €25 fuel/tax/insurance saving, you're getting a new car for €12 a week, assuming you didn't borrow the cash to change.

Confused me like a car salesman would

But makes me feel better saying i have a new car for €12 per week :cool:

dizzydiesel

In short, diesel is still the way to go....at least until they manage to get a hybrid with proper performance and at a realistic price.

TDI engines (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, and now BMW) are really clean versus their performance. Most can get 50-60mpg.....depending on the model (ie the heavier the car the less mileage)...audi A6 is a heavy thing!

The problem is that these cars are expensive too, so you need to weigh up the depreciation of one of these cars verses an older model deisel that doesn't have such good fuel ecomeny.

Obviously, the more mileage you cover in a year, the more you will save. Even if you do little milegage, your fuel consumption is still going to be less.

Before July, annual road tax for typical diesel cars (1.9TDI or 2.0TD) was approx €500.....and this will continue for used cars registered before July 2008. But now, new cars, or imported cars that have low C02 emmisions are taxed at the new VRT bands.
This means that clean diesel cars (manual rather than auto) will be in favorable tax bands. You can import a used BMW 3 series 2.0TD and pay only 16% VRT....and annual road tax of €150. This is cheaper than old road tax for a 1.2l petrol car (pre-July2008).....and will get better fuel consumption also.

So get out there and buy a good diesel....forget petrol.....even if prices of deisel are 5c per litre more expensive.........it doesn't come close.

r3nu4l

dizzydiesel wrote: »

So get out there and buy a good diesel....forget petrol.....even if prices of deisel are 5c per litre more expensive.........it doesn't come close.

Unless you live in the UK where diesel prices are a full 12-13 pence per litre more than petrol!

Diesel is currently around £1.32.9 in most of East Anglia, compared with £1.19.9 for petrol).

You will need to recalculate properly and be doing a huge number of miles (like I do) for diesel to be the better option.

dizzydiesel

Time to do the homework on calculations if you do small mileage.......
In the UK with such a difference in fuel prices, more calculations on consumption would need to be done.
However, majority of diesels will get 40%-60% better fuel econemy....(ignoring the cost of the vehicle) and in Ireland with the VRT and road tax based on C02 the fuel consumptions is the only other comparable variable. So even a 20% difference in diesel price vs petrol will not bridge to 40-60% superior fuel consumption.

Of course, my VRT calculations are only relavent to the new VRT Irish market....and/or importing UK cars.

Marcus.Aurelius

from an average diesel doing around 50 mpg, versus a petrol doing 35 mpg, diesel would have to cost 42% more before you would be better off with the petrol.

Which is not the case in the UK or here.

vectra

Chief Admiral wrote: »

from an average diesel doing around 50 mpg, versus a petrol doing 35 mpg, diesel would have to cost 42% more before you would be better off with the petrol.

Which is not the case in the UK or here.

Rubbish.

I had Petrol and was robbed from running to the pumps as i do mainly Town Driving.
Since I changed to diesel I now only go to the pumps every few weeks.
I no longer have to check how much is in the tank before going anywhere.
Sometimes i even forget where the local petrol station is

Matt Simis

vectra wrote: »

Rubbish.

I had Petrol and was robbed from running to the pumps as i do mainly Town Driving.
Since I changed to diesel I now only go to the pumps every few weeks.
I no longer have to check how much is in the tank before going anywhere.
Sometimes i even forget where the local petrol station is

Think you got what he said backwards!

Marcus.Aurelius

vectra wrote: »

Rubbish.

I think you misread my post there vectra :pac:

dizzydiesel

Vectra....you are right.
I notice that when sitting in traffic in a petrol car.....tends to gulp the fuel anyway.

Diesel when sitting in traffic takes a sip every so often.

Town driving (starting stopping contineously) is the closest match between petrol and diesel.

Diesel vs Petrol on motorway.....diesel wins by a mile.
Diesel vs Petrol in traffic sitting......diesel wins by a mile.
Diesel vs Petrol starting/stopping contineously at slow speeds 30mph.....diesel still wins, but by a closer margin.

dizzydiesel

Chief Admiral wrote: »

I think you misread my post there vectra :pac:

Guys..........you are both on the same side.

Saruman

Diesel is still better and i would still buy one.. at least until the Hydrogen cars come out.
Anyone see the GM one they tested on Top gear a while back? It generates enough power from seawater to power a street of houses. And you can switch the steering wheel around depending on how you feel and what country you are in.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire.htm

vectra

Chief Admiral wrote: »

I think you misread my post there vectra :pac:

oops. :P

Keano

Diesel it is so for my next car.

E92

vectra wrote: »

Rubbish.

I had Petrol and was robbed from running to the pumps as i do mainly Town Driving.
Since I changed to diesel I now only go to the pumps every few weeks.
I no longer have to check how much is in the tank before going anywhere.
Sometimes i even forget where the local petrol station is

You had a 1.8 Mondeo, and now you have a 1.4 Cordoba, and you think that that's a fair comparison to make for petrol versus diesel?

@Dizzydiesel: what planet are you on with your 40-60% better economy from diesel? Maybe if you use comparisons like vectra comparing a supermini with a family saloon you'll get 40-60% but not if you make vaslid comparisons.

They're at most 30-40% more efficient than petrol; actually if we take the most modern of each type, the Audi A4 which got a brand new petrol and diesel in it this year, we find that the 2.0 petrol averages 43.5 mpg, while the diesel does 53.3 mpg. That means it is the grand total of 22.5% better on juice.

Another example would be the BMW 530i and the 530d, which also have very modern engines. The 530i auto does 37.7 mpg, versus the 42.8 mpg of the 530d. That makes the diesel the grand total of just 13.5% more economical. In other words if diesel was 10% dearer then it would hardly be any cheaper to run a 530d over a 530i, and you'd be losing out on 41 bhp, petrol noise and refinement as well as a 7,000 rpm rev limiter every time you drive one too.

Btw, both cars I mentioned have considerably more power in petrol application, as well as far less particulates and Nitrous Oxide emissions. But I suppose a bit like the hybrid fanboys who ignore all the pollution caused by making a hybrid and disposing of one when they hit the scrapheap, that doesn't count as "pollution" at all, does it?

I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that they are better to drive than petrols. If anything, I find them a bit of a pain in town to drive because of all that torque at low revs. I don't like the way they are still no match for petrol in terms of smoothness, the way they hate going anywhere near 4,000 rpm let alone beyond that, the fact that they're still noisier and nowhere near as good sounding as petrols, the fact they don't have the finesse and joie de vivre of petrol on the road, I don't like the way they're considered to be more environmentally friendly because the EU allows them to pollute far more Nitrous Oxide than petrols.

They cost more(VRT regs effectively subsidise this increased cost), they pollute 13% more CO2 per litre burned than petrol(2.65 kg of CO2 per litre burned of diesel vs 2.37 kg per litre burned of petrol) which means that of course it should be dearer than petrol on the polluter pays principle, they are bad for our health, they weigh more, they smell more, they are noisier, not as smooth, lack enthusiasm for revs, don't have anything like the linear power delivery of a petrol, they are no faster than petrols despite the delusions of diesel owners because what you do with a petrol is you rev it beyond 4,000 and go up to 6,000 rpm or even the rev limiter and then we'll see how diesel torque is getting on:D.

Btw, we have a week old 520d at home(and its engine is very good, if unrefined for the size and type of car, for a diesel) and I still prefer the straight 6 petrol engine in my E34 despite being roughly half as economical and having 27 less bhp.

Johnny Utah

No, but these never-ending debates on diesel v petrol are.

Cuauhtemoc

they pollute 13% more CO2 per litre burned than petrol(2.65 kg of CO2 per litre burned of diesel vs 2.37 kg per litre burned of petrol) which means that of course it should be dearer than petrol on the polluter pays principle

Going by your own figures from earlier in the thread though

They're at most 30-40% more efficient than petrol; actually if we take the most modern of each type, the Audi A4 which got a brand new petrol and diesel in it this year, we find that the 2.0 petrol averages 43.5 mpg, while the diesel does 53.3 mpg. That means it is the grand total of 22.5% better on juice.

Or 13.5 % for that bmw example.

If we go by the polluter pays principle i'd still generally be emitting less CO2 per kilometer travelled.
Of course my maths are probably dodgy


C.

Edit: In case you hadn't guessed i drive a 18 month old 1.9 diesel with the higher road tax Is that depreciation i smell???

vectra

E92 wrote: »

You had a 1.8 Mondeo, and now you have a 1.4 Cordoba, and you think that that's a fair comparison to make for petrol versus diesel?

So,
Do you think a 1.6 Petrol Mondeo would be more economical than a 1.8 Petrol Mondeo doing similar driving ?:rolleyes: