Big engine. Big problem?

yoshiktk

Hello my boardies.
Im just curious about the 2000+ 2.0L + engines. Worth the shot even we the tax?
Im checking DD everyday for some bargain, a lot of them unfortunate are 2.0L +, after 1.4L its a huge jump on tax and probably on fuel as well.
My wife is in love Santa Fe, again 2.0L engine, on other side there Saab for me. 2.3L Oo Darn it. Maybe we could go somehow with the tax but im not sure about petrol.
For example Saab have stats starting from 7l/km to 16l/km, the same engine version.
Thats why from one side were still thinking going for it but theres that slight chance its gonna be too expensive.
Any opinions? Thanks

cabb8ge

What kms per year would the car be used for?

yoshiktk

Max around 25000km.

YbFocus

Big diesel bmw you are border line not being able to justify it though.
My 530d will do 40mpg if you want it to and the m57 is fantastically reliable other than turbo trouble which some never get.
You'll get the bigger engined cheaper than the equivalent small engined car which will offset the tax for a year or two.

smoking_kills

YbFocus wrote: »

Big diesel bmw you are border line not being able to justify it though.
My 530d will do 40mpg if you want it to and the m57 is fantastically reliable other than turbo trouble which some never get.
You'll get the bigger engined cheaper than the equivalent small engined car which will offset the tax for a year or two.

What turbo trouble?

I was looking at one of these for the work run /daily drive

YbFocus

smoking_kills wrote: »

What turbo trouble?

I was looking at one of these for the work run /daily drive

They do give hassle with turbo's, some get it and some don't. If you get one try get a model with the swirl flaps removed.

smoking_kills

YbFocus wrote: »

They do give hassle with turbo's, some get it and some don't. If you get one try get a model with the swirl flaps removed.

Cheers Yb

yoshiktk

YbFocus wrote: »

Big diesel bmw you are border line not being able to justify it though.
My 530d will do 40mpg if you want it to and the m57 is fantastically reliable other than turbo trouble which some never get.
You'll get the bigger engined cheaper than the equivalent small engined car which will offset the tax for a year or two.

What engine does it have? The max for which i would aim is 2.3l. 1000 euro per year isnt so bad. I dunno why but kinda im not a fan of bmw.

YbFocus

yoshiktk wrote: »

What engine does it have? The max for which i would aim is 2.3l. 1000 euro per year isnt so bad. I dunno why but kinda im not a fan of bmw.

A 3 litre man, so yeah its out of your bracket.
Not sure of anything around that engine size sorry.

ShadowHearth

Big engine does not mean big problem. If we take out all the other variables then Big engine has less trouble then small engine, as big engine will be under a lot less stress. It all depends from car to car too.
With big engine, comes bigger tax tag, but not as bigger fuel jump as you might think. Same principal again as we had with "trouble". The bigger engine does not need to be reved and pushed to get moving like a smaller engine. So you will stay on lower rpms and better efficiency, just keep in mind fuel efficiency depends from your left foot.

Almost any "really nice" car comes in bigger engine. In Ireland you can get fantastic bargains due to bigger engine sizes ( I wount even go as far as saying 2.0 is a big engine, because in petrolhead world thats a tiny engine ) being not wanted. If you look at your purchase this way: " I pay more for car tax, but I pay a lot less for car it self ", then bigger tax bracket will be easier to swallow.

yoshiktk

YbFocus wrote: »

A 3 litre man, so yeah its out of your bracket.
Not sure of anything around that engine size sorry.

I wouldnt mind that but my wife would kill me :P Im already having problem convincing her to Saab 2.3 even that she wants SantaFe with 2l engine.

YbFocus

Exactly shadow, when I got the 530 it was 3,000 cheaper than the equivalent 520.
Note: take into account that it's 700 anyway for the 520's tax that means it takes 4 years to draw even. win

jimgoose

YbFocus wrote: »

A 3 litre man, so yeah its out of your bracket.
Not sure of anything around that engine size sorry.

I drive a 3-litre V6, and I can tell you that, horrific road-tax aside, the old bus gives back an awful lot. More power than you'll ever need, the effortless torque of an artic, silent, smooth and always just murmuring along under no stress whatsoever. Reliability has been fantastic - I've had no engine issues in seven years (138,000 miles up on her now) aside from one or two stupid five-dollar sensor kind of things.

Victor Meldrew

Also bear in mind that most manufacturers "lie" about fuel economy.

A big diesel, any diesel, will not give the magic fuel economy in short trips around town. Modern diesels HATE city driving.

Also, The Santa-fe is a big heavy car. do you need 4WD? because you are just driving a bloated heavy car otherwise.

For a given car, there will be no real fuel consumption difference between 1.6 and 2.0L. At the end of the day, the weight of the car matters more, and you will strain a 1.6L engine when the car should have a 2L.

Use fuelly.com for data for real life fuel consuption (with a pinch of salt). My old 2.3 9-5 Aero averaged 29 MPG 9.7 l/100km while we owned it but the consuption was all over the gaff depending on whether the car was driven just locally or on longer trips.

http://www.fuelly.com/driver/samih/95

Incidentally the replacement 2.0 9-5 seems to be almost exactly the same if not a bit thirstier (but no data exists for it yet).

yoshiktk

She likes that overall feel from SantaFe. The position behind the wheel or higher seats, we both have problems with back. I tried to convince her to Zafira which in my opinion is far better car but without luck.
The Saab is around 900 tax so it still wouldnt be so bad, if it could stay in 9-10l/km would be great. Over that and I would need to take to much overtime :P
Its a miracle but she agreed with few toughs conditions but still i hope that its gonna be worth it. Still have to wait for my mechanic to get back from holiday, to check the car.
Already read few advic3e from polish saab club. God, things which i need to check before could take few a4 pages .

Victor Meldrew

yoshiktk wrote: »

She likes that overall feel from SantaFe. The position behind the wheel or higher seats, we both have problems with back. I tried to convince her to Zafira which in my opinion is far better car but without luck.

If you have back problems, get a Volvo. Best seats in any car.

B00056718

yoshiktk wrote: »

She likes that overall feel from SantaFe. The position behind the wheel or higher seats, we both have problems with back. I tried to convince her to Zafira which in my opinion is far better car but without luck.
The Saab is around 900 tax so it still wouldnt be so bad, if it could stay in 9-10l/km would be great. Over that and I would need to take to much overtime :P
Its a miracle but she agreed with few toughs conditions but still i hope that its gonna be worth it. Still have to wait for my mechanic to get back from holiday, to check the car.
Already read few advic3e from polish saab club. God, things which i need to check before could take few a4 pages .

I'm driving 9-5 2.3l Aero.
Averaging @ 11.7L/100km (around 25mpg) Newcastle-Blanch-Newcastle commuting.
I'm heavy right footed too.

Compared to E39 523i, Saab is easier on fuel. Quicker too.
Feels much more brutal though.

njburke

Rover 75 with BMW M47 diesel engine + Mitsubishi turbo+ JATCO auto box.

= No clutch, No DMF, No timing belt, No Swirl Flaps = No big problems.

Supergurrier

Only trouble you will get from a big engine in this country is the tax form landing in the post

For Forks Sake

Victor Meldrew wrote: »

If you have back problems, get a Volvo. Best seats in any car.

I've a S60 D5 (2.4 diesel). Averages over 50 mpg. Comfortable as my armchair to drive. Only negative is the unsavoury tax bill.

JohnBoy26

YbFocus wrote: »

Big diesel bmw you are border line not being able to justify it though.
My 530d will do 40mpg if you want it to and the m57 is fantastically reliable other than turbo trouble which some never get.
You'll get the bigger engined cheaper than the equivalent small engined car which will offset the tax for a year or two.

Why

25000km a year is well well into diesel territory, anyone who says other wise is talking out their a*se! It would be absolute insanity to even consider a big petrol engined car.

YbFocus

Ah Christ that's only like 500km a week, you'd do that going to the shops.
Personally I do 50,000 miles annually, I would have thought that 15,000 miles a year would have been border line yes no, but I never looked into it so sorry lads, just me thinking out loud

toastedpickles

If you're after a Saab, may I recommend this

http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/saab-9-5-hot-aero-concours/4869604

JohnBoy26

YbFocus wrote: »

Ah Christ that's only like 500km a week, you'd do that going to the shops.
Personally I do 50,000 miles annually, I would have thought that 15,000 miles a year would have been border line yes no, but I never looked into it so sorry lads, just me thinking out loud

Not necessarily is the answer to that. It's all down to what environment the car will be used in.

For example a modern diesel doing 10k miles per year going up and down the motorway will not give any issues associated with small mileage.

A car doing 10k in stop/start driving conditions such as in a town or city, is more than likely going to give issues.

It boils down to where the car will be used.

Scortho

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Not necessarily is the answer to that. It's all down to what environment the car will be used in.

For example a modern diesel doing 10k miles per year going up and down the motorway will not give any issues associated with small mileage.

A car doing 10k in stop/start driving conditions such as in a town or city, is more than likely going to give issues.

It boils down to where the car will be used.

Most people buy modern diesels to save money on fuel. Now there are some out there who prefer diesel over petrol (don't know why) but mainly they're bought for the cheaper fuel.

If they're only doing 10k miles their main reason for buying diesel is thrown out the window.

jayok

Derrick Steep Ghetto wrote: »

25000km a year is well well into diesel territory, anyone who says other wise is talking out their a*se! It would be absolute insanity to even consider a big petrol engined car.

Talking out their a*se?

Really? I do about 16K miles a year in a 2.4 petrol. I average 32mpg (mixed City and Motorway) and have no problems with a DPF, turbos, injectors.

It's a Honda Accord 2.4. As it's a large petrol engine, it's worth peanuts and I paid peanuts for it. It's serviced every 12K miles using standard oils, etc with Sparks that last 75K miles.

It puts out 190BHP and 223NM of torque and will shift to 100km/hr in under 8 seconds.

So for a start, it's cheaper to buy and service that a diesel equivalent.

Now the fuel. The diesel equivalent (2.2) will do about 45 mpg mixed.

To do 16,000 miles in Petrol takes, 500 gallons or 2,270 litres
To do 16,000 miles in Diesel takes, 356 gallons or 1,616 litres

This costs 2,270 * €1.59/litre = €3,609 for petrol
This costs 1,616 * €1.53/litre = €2,472 for diesel
(these are my local prices)

So a difference of €1,137 per annum between the Petrol and Diesel or less than €100 per month. The "saving" by a diesel will be offset by the cost of DMFs, turbos, injectors, etc.

So back to your original comment. 25000Km is NOT well into diesel territory.

@OP - from the above. Big petrol engine is not a big problem. Do you math an you'll find it's actually quite reasonable.

yoshiktk

Diesel wasnt an option from the start, im aware of the problems of them and with my luck all of them would attack me in the same time. Besides for 99% i will LPG next car. Trip on petrol or even diesel to poland would be just to expensive.
Our 25k km in most of the time is based on driving from greystones to bray thru city, only from time to time we go for small road trip, with diesel i would need to go thru n11 more often.
The starting question maybe was wasnt tbe accurate one, it should be more like does big engine mean big expenses?

njburke

I've been thinking about the economics of ownership on a larger petrol engine lately, primarily driven by the low purchase price of some of the older luxobarges. A rover 75 enthuasist I know recently picked up a very clean 10 year old estate with a 2.5L petrol V6, it had 28,000 Miles on it for the princely sum of E500 euros. Nobody wanted the car at E2000, E1500, E1000

First job he did was to remove the petrol engine and retro fit the 2L diesel M47.

I don't know if he considered the other option, keep the engine convert to LPG to get the same fuel economy as the transplanted diesel. (26MPG at 89cents/L versus 48MPG at 149 cents/L ).

As for a avoiding problems, one way to do that is to choose wisely when buyinging, learn what goes wrong with the engine/drivetrain your thinking of buying and look for those faults or evidence of repair.
In my case the car I bought had receipts for repairs to the most expensive common faults, it had a couple of the low cost minor ones which I've since had repaired, a fuel pump being the most recent which was replaced for 100 euros. I don't consider having to replace the fuel pump on an 11 year old, 90,000 miler as big problem . However there are some people who would consider that as a big problem, thats customers for you.

Much as I'ld like a post 2008 520D touring, they come with a N47 engine, where timing chain failure 'is not an uncommon occurence", I'ld consider that a big problem.

galwaytt

Fwiw it's worth our Saab 9-5 2.2 TiD auto estate is currently averaging 7.4 l/100km. Tax is €951 p.a.

My brother's 9-5 3.0t petrol turbo is averaging 10l/100km. But he has LPG as well. Tax is. ... €1600+

Ignoring that neither of us have had any mechanical problems and our car has 191k kms on it now. Engine is an old low-tech GM diesel so is comparatively unstressed.

Brothers petrol car Ditto. 3 litre V6 LPT engine.

njburke

@galwaytt,
Battle of the Luxobarges,
11 euros per 100KM for the 2.2 Diesel with say 8.50 euros per 100 KM for the 3L petrol running on LPG.

The brother in the 3L LPG saab needs to drive a further 26000KM in a year before his motoring economy (on motor tax alone) is lower than the diesel.

I assume insurance is a little higher on a 3L too.

Scortho

njburke wrote: »

@galwaytt,
Battle of the Luxobarges,
11 euros per 100KM for the 2.2 Diesel with say 8.50 euros per 100 KM for the 3L petrol running on LPG.

The brother in the 3L LPG saab needs to drive a further 26000KM in a year before his motoring costs are lower than the diesel.

Is that every year, or just over his ownership.
I'd have thought that in the long run LPG would be cheaper.

njburke

The tax differential is 650 euros with the LPG being the more expensive but the LPG is 2.50 per 100KM cheaper on fuel, so the LPG vehicle would need to travel a further 26000 KM before its better fuel economy the total cost of fuel and tax is the same for both the diesel and the LPG Saabs.

Will work out an estimate for the 2L cdti rover and the 2.5 v6 rover .

2L diesel vs 2.5 V6 LPG
710 and 1080 for motor tax, 370 euros differential.
48 vs 26 MPG ,
which is 5.9 vs 10.9 L/100 K
which is 8.8 euros vs 9.2 euros per 100KM. (1.49 for diesel, 0.85 euros for LPG)

Alas at 26MPG the V6 can never catch the diesel in the race to better economy, as the diesel is both cheaper to tax and cheaper to run.

Scortho

Ah fair enough.
I thought they were both in the same tax bracket...for some reason.
If you have two 3L chances are LPG will work out cheaper.

njburke

Scortho wrote: »

Is that every year, or just over his ownership.
I'd have thought that in the long run LPG would be cheaper.

Each Tax year, the LPG SAAB just needs to travel 26000 KM to make up the tax differential.

njburke

its different for the rovers as that 2L diesel is more fuel efficient than the GM diesel in the Saab whilst the Rover 2.5 KV6 and the 3 L Saab turbo have similar fuel efficiency.

Oh and just to reiterate on the SAABS, think of it as a race with the diesel having a 650 euro headstart, after 26000 KMs the two are side by side.

corkgsxr

If I didnt need a van I wouldn't buy a diesel in a fit. Id get a 1.8 or 2l petrol.

Theres something very satisfying about a petrol that even high powered diesels don't give ya

Scortho

njburke wrote: »

Each Tax year, the LPG SAAB just needs to travel 26000 KM to make up the tax differential.

I read what the two cars were after my initial post.
It's not really comparing like with like though.
Theyre in two totally different categories.
If both had the same tax, the LPG would make more sense. Lpg only makes sense over diesel at high miles and top tax bracket.

Charlie19

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Big engine does not mean big problem. If we take out all the other variables then Big engine has less trouble then small engine, as big engine will be under a lot less stress. It all depends from car to car too.
With big engine, comes bigger tax tag, but not as bigger fuel jump as you might think. Same principal again as we had with "trouble". The bigger engine does not need to be reved and pushed to get moving like a smaller engine. So you will stay on lower rpms and better efficiency, just keep in mind fuel efficiency depends from your left foot.
.

Would it not be the right foot for accelerator.

Jesus.

Do many people these days drive big engine cars in Ireland (other than the rich)? I was looking at the Motor Tax rates and if someone wanted to drive a pre-08 three liter it would cost them eighteen hundred-odd pound to tax!

What kind of a Country do we live in with such mind-boggling numbers involved just to drive a car with a decent engine in it? Its like its almost a criminal offence to even contemplate driving a big car here.

Tigger

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Big engine does not mean big problem. If we take out all the other variables then Big engine has less trouble then small engine, as big engine will be under a lot less stress. It all depends from car to car too.
With big engine, comes bigger tax tag, but not as bigger fuel jump as you might think. Same principal again as we had with "trouble". The bigger engine does not need to be reved and pushed to get moving like a smaller engine. So you will stay on lower rpms and better efficiency, just keep in mind fuel efficiency depends from your left foot.

Almost any "really nice" car comes in bigger engine. In Ireland you can get fantastic bargains due to bigger engine sizes ( I wount even go as far as saying 2.0 is a big engine, because in petrolhead world thats a tiny engine ) being not wanted. If you look at your purchase this way: " I pay more for car tax, but I pay a lot less for car it self ", then bigger tax bracket will be easier to swallow.

right foot

galwaytt

njburke wrote: »

@galwaytt,
Battle of the Luxobarges,
11 euros per 100KM for the 2.2 Diesel with say 8.50 euros per 100 KM for the 3L petrol running on LPG.

The brother in the 3L LPG saab needs to drive a further 26000KM in a year before his motoring economy (on motor tax alone) is lower than the diesel.

I assume insurance is a little higher on a 3L too.

Scortho wrote: »

Is that every year, or just over his ownership.
I'd have thought that in the long run LPG would be cheaper.

Sorry for the confusion:

The tax quoted is per car, per year.

The mpg for the diesel is straightforward enough.

The mpg for the petrol one is for petrol-only. When he runs it on LPG he does find it varies a lot, depending on where he refills it: obviously some LPG pumps are packing more in than others.............so difference is varying from 5% - 15%, and he's paying around €0.89/litre.

As for 'why would you bother' with a 3.0 arguments, like so many, the car is 12 years old, owes no-one anything, and is sale-proof. If you took the 1800 p.a. tax - what would you buy with that sum ? Nothing approaching what a luxobarge can give you, that's for sure. And it would be nothing short of criminal to scarp the car- it's mint. And you can repeat that for all the older BMW, Merc, Audi and Lexus etc out there.

My father got a 740i for half-a-peanut a while ago. He has no intention of driving it: when asked why he said.....'I always wanted to strip a V8 engine...' !!

yoshiktk

I was thingking about going for this one http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/saab-9-5-estate/5557052 .
My wife even agreed to it, but after she heard about the turbo... Woman. She changed her mind. So now im stuck with a nice Saab in mind but i have to look for something without t. Argh.
Have to say that 2.2L Accord looks pretty decent.
Its a shame that Ireland decided to do the "double tax", thats what i like in Poland. We pay tax in fuel, so having big engine doesnt mean so many expenses.

Mar4ix

yoshiktk wrote: »

I was thingking about going for this one http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/saab-9-5-estate/5557052 .
My wife even agreed to it, but after she heard about the turbo... Woman. She changed her mind. So now im stuck with a nice Saab in mind but i have to look for something without t. Argh.
Have to say that 2.2L Accord looks pretty decent.
Its a shame that Ireland decided to do the "double tax", thats what i like in Poland. We pay tax in fuel, so having big engine doesnt mean so many expenses.

Show this article about turbo chargers. Hope, your wife believe what is written in encyclopedia. Turbos were invented for more power and efficiency.
Might she will change mind about turbos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

serious3

Jesus. wrote: »

Do many people these days drive big engine cars in Ireland (other than the rich)? I was looking at the Motor Tax rates and if someone wanted to drive a pre-08 three liter it would cost them eighteen hundred-odd pound to tax!

What kind of a Country do we live in with such mind-boggling numbers involved just to drive a car with a decent engine in it? Its like its almost a criminal offence to even contemplate driving a big car here.

yep i do! i run a 2003 2.5l jag stype, it was bought for ...€1400 with nearly a years test on it, we only do around 8-10k miles a year, tax is a bit saucy at 1080, fuel consumption is averaging 30mpg at the minute on the plus side i waft around in near silence with oodles of performance!! oh and i'm far from rich as i look after my special needs daughter so i'm not working

jimgoose

Jesus. wrote: »

Do many people these days drive big engine cars in Ireland (other than the rich)? I was looking at the Motor Tax rates and if someone wanted to drive a pre-08 three liter it would cost them eighteen hundred-odd pound to tax!

What kind of a Country do we live in with such mind-boggling numbers involved just to drive a car with a decent engine in it? Its like its almost a criminal offence to even contemplate driving a big car here.

I drive a 1999 3-litre S-Type Jag, 8-10,000 miles per year and while I am not rich and far from it, I am of adequate means. It averages around 24MPG, and the set-up is about 50-50 suburban bimbling and motorway jaunts. Road tax is definitely painful at €1,494, but it's worth it to me.

As for the usual Irish bull regarding proper cars with actual engines, I blame the Jesuits. Or something. You hear 'em all: "Jaysis, you'd want a petrol tanker behind that! Yur-Hur-Hurr!!!", "Ah we don't have the roads here for them yokes at all, at all like!" and the immortal "Jag, eh? That's the one that uses so much peteral it has two tanks, like!!".

Mar4ix

not in Ireland, but petrol prices are similar, i drive jeep grand cherokee 4.7 v 8 (4x4) petrol one. mainly motorways, according computer it takes 10l./100km. , easy city drive takes 20l/100km , but it is hard to drive easy that yoke :pac: , but comfort and confidence on the road invaluable worth every penny of fuel .

visual

Mar4ix wrote: »

not in Ireland, but petrol prices are similar, i drive jeep grand cherokee 4.7 v 8 (4x4) petrol one. mainly motorways, according computer it takes 10l./100km. , easy city drive takes 20l/100km , but it is hard to drive easy that yoke :pac: , but comfort and confidence on the road invaluable worth every penny of fuel .

My deeam Jeep
Ive the GC 3.1td and its milage isnt much better.
I was considering the V8 but afraid of its real world mpg. Yours doesn't sound that bad sorry now I didn't go V8

Mar4ix

visual wrote: »

My deeam Jeep
Ive the GC 3.1td and its milage isnt much better.
I was considering the V8 but afraid of its real world mpg. Yours doesn't sound that bad sorry now I didn't go V8

GC is heavy car. i think diesel engine is too weak to move that big thing, if i am not mistaken there is two engines 2.7 and 3.1 .
4.7 is redesigned 5.9 engine , made more economical and efficient. there is many 4.0 petrol out there, I dont know how are they.

never experienced so much power from low end revs(when accelerating hard, feel like you are in airplane ) , as engine is decompressed, for fuel efficiency and rise low rev torque. there is regular 4.7 with 230 hp and high output one with over 260 hp , and there is plenty options to gain horses.

i might wouldnt use that 4.7 for every day car, but occasionally to experience some power and some off-road fun.

Not in Ireland though.

EDIT :
Just glanced on wikipedia, 2.7 have more power than 3.1

visual

The diesel have very high torque so no issue moving them or accelerating up hills even with a trailer. The torgue is even lower down the rev range than the petrol. Great machines on off road.

The 4.0 petrol is a old design with mpg almost the same as 4.7 it makes no difference.

I like the 2.7 Mercedes engine in the GC but they seem very prone to injector and pump issues. They are the most fuel efficient in the WJ / WG.
Www.jeepforum.com is a great site for enthusiastic owner.