Irish Times article on diesels

ROVER

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/running-on-diesel-is-it-really-all-that-efficient-1.1687650

Nothing new but worth a read.

galwaytt

ROVER wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/running-on-diesel-is-it-really-all-that-efficient-1.1687650

Nothing new but worth a read.

Hallelujah.

hoodie6029

Music to my ears, unfortunately as a second hand buyer it'll be a few years before the new petrols come into my domain...

PauloMN

Will small capacity, highly boosted petrol engines be any less of a headache though in the long term as regards maintenance and stuff going wrong? I'm not so sure.

Leonard Hofstadter

Well they won't have DPFs or DMFs to go very expensively wrong if they're driven around town. Of course, they could suffer from turbo issues, but that's no different to diesels, and besides, because petrol engines are so much more powerful than diesels, the turbos won't be worked anything like as hard.

The one thing I could see being a problem is carbon build up (because the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder as opposed to through the valves, the valves can't get 'washed' so any carbon that accumulates there cannot be removed, whereas in a conventional engine a good thrashing will clear off any carbon built up in the valves because the engine and fuel will be hot enough to 'wash' the valves), but I think that only really affected the old school direct injection petrols. The Mitsubishi GDI was notorious for the problem, but you never hear of VW's TSI units having this problem, so I assume this is no longer an issue with direct injection petrols. Even if they do suffer from this problem, there are products available that will quite cheaply rectify the issue as opposed to stripping down the engine to remove any carbon build up.

sawdoubters

http://www.dogandlemon.com/articles/diesels

shedweller

Hmm.
My ****ty diesel yaris has done 270,000km and hasnt had mad expensive repairs yet.
My god awful 1.6 ceed sw has 200,000km under her belt and hasnt given a moments trouble yet.

Shocks and drop links hardly count do they?

Mr.David

shedweller wrote: »

Hmm.
My ****ty diesel yaris has done 270,000km and hasnt had mad expensive repairs yet.
My god awful 1.6 ceed sw has 200,000km under her belt and hasnt given a moments trouble yet.

Shocks and drop links hardly count do they?

That's great, but with a sample size of two carries practically no statistical information regarding the reliability of modern diesels.

shedweller

Mr.David wrote: »

That's great, but with a sample size of two carries practically no statistical information regarding the reliability of modern diesels.

Does me fine. All my workmates with diesels have had no such problems with dpf's etc.
Blown out of proportion i think. Some would say its a propaganda piece to get more people buying petrol cars and in fairness thats a good marketing move.

And speaking of statistics, i've had a few french cars down the years and guess what? They all gave trouble. All showstoppers too. But all i hear from a good few in here is how great they are.
Statistics eh?

Leonard Hofstadter

As already mentioned, a sample size of two is absolutely meaningless. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Anyway, you can believe whatever you like, the facts are modern diesel engines are not suitable for motorists who do extensive town driving. While some diesels are of course more prone to it than others, DPFs and DMFs will give trouble eventually if they spend most of their lives being driven around town.

And people will have problems with diesel engines in Ireland, because a) lots of Irish people don't bother servicing their cars on time and if it wasn't for the NCT they'd never be serviced at all, and b) many people are buying diesels even if they're doing very low mileage for the "low tax" and because the man in the pub said you should buy a diesels because they're "great yokes these days" so the sheep mentality has set in. On an increasing number of cars, the petrol option is cheaper for many motorists even allowing for the higher depreciation. A diesel Golf or an Octavia is up to €3,000 more expensive than the petrol equivalent, and is only €20 cheaper to tax every year in some cases.

Especially for low mileage motorists, people should really do the sums on the car they're interested in before blindly jumping in and buying a diesel - it may not be the financially prudent option, and then there are all the other advantages of petrol engines, such as better reliability, more power, wider rev range, lower weight at the front and thus better handling, much smoother, quieter, sounds nicer, no delay in throttle response, much wider power band etc.

jca

shedweller wrote: »

Hmm.
My ****ty diesel yaris has done 270,000km and hasnt had mad expensive repairs yet.
My god awful 1.6 ceed sw has 200,000km under her belt and hasnt given a moments trouble yet.

Shocks and drop links hardly count do they?

270,000 and 200,000 are high mileages, that's the mileages these engines thrive on. I've gone back to a TSI Octavia because of impending turbo vane troubles in my 88,000 km diesel, the dmf isn't in great shape either because of all the town driving. I'd forgotten how silent a petrol engine is, I regularly glance at the rev-counter thinking it has stalled.

Valetta

shedweller wrote: »

Does me fine. All my workmates with diesels have had no such problems with dpf's etc.
Blown out of proportion i think. Some would say its a propaganda piece to get more people buying petrol cars and in fairness thats a good marketing move.

And speaking of statistics, i've had a few french cars down the years and guess what? They all gave trouble. All showstoppers too. But all i hear from a good few in here is how great they are.
Statistics eh?

+1.

I know of several people, including myself (30,000 miles in 4 years) with modern diesels who do relatively low mileage mostly areound Dublin city, who have had no DMF or DPF problems.

To state as fact that there will be problems (as Captainspeed does below)

And people will have problems with diesel engines in Ireland

is misleading.

Apart from the odd poster here I have not come accross anyone who has had major repair bills as often alluded to in this forum.

People have agendas.

jca

Valetta wrote: »

+1.

I know of several people, including myself (30,000 miles in 4 years) with modern diesels who do relatively low mileage mostly areound Dublin city, who have had no DMF or DPF problems.

To state as fact that there will be problems (as Captainspeed does below)



is misleading.

Apart from the odd poster here I have not come accross anyone who has had major repair bills as often alluded to in this forum.

People have agendas.

What would that agenda be? I know plenty who are enduring dpf problems and unfortunately aren't in a financial position to sort it.

SleeperService

A dmf is a major bill. Make em right, or make em cheap to replace, or don't make em at all.

Valetta

jca wrote: »

What would that agenda be? I know plenty who are enduring dpf problems and unfortunately aren't in a financial position to sort it.

To scare more people into buying petrol cars because they think "daysul" is "the fuel of the devil".

It's scaremongering by so-called petrol heads who think everyone should be driving >3.5 Ltr. petrol guzzlers.

jca

Valetta wrote: »

To scare more people into buying petrol cars because they think "daysul" is "the fuel of the devil".

It's scaremongering by so-called petrol heads who think everyone should be driving >3.5 Ltr. petrol guzzlers.

As the Ad says, Nonsense... I thought you had an actual reason.

ianobrien

Valetta wrote: »

.....30,000 miles ....

With regard to diesels, that mileage is just post run in. Give it another 30k miles (making 100k km) and you'll start to see the effects of typical city driving.

(Assuming you're going typical city driving and not running the engine for hours at a time....)

Valetta

ianobrien wrote: »

With regard to diesels, that mileage is just post run in. Give it another 30k miles (making 100k km) and you'll start to see the effects of typical city driving.

(Assuming you're going typical city driving and not running the engine for hours at a time....)

Car was 4 years old when I bought it and had 35K miles on it then, so mileage now is circa, 65K.

I live in Dublin so my driving would be typically 80% city and 20% motorway (maybe one long trip per month).

Tea 1000

shedweller wrote: »

Hmm.
My ****ty diesel yaris has done 270,000km and hasnt had mad expensive repairs yet.
My god awful 1.6 ceed sw has 200,000km under her belt and hasnt given a moments trouble yet.

Shocks and drop links hardly count do they?

270,000 kms means you're not doing the 1.5 kms to the school every day in a city that causes the problem in the first place, so it doesn't apply to you. Read the article again maybe!

PauloMN

Valetta wrote: »

To scare more people into buying petrol cars because they think "daysul" is "the fuel of the devil".

It's scaremongering by so-called petrol heads who think everyone should be driving >3.5 Ltr. petrol guzzlers.

I don't think that's the intention at all actually, and nobody mentioned petrol guzzlers. I'd suggest the idea is for people who would typically look at a 1.6 turbo diesel to look at a 1.2 or 1.4 petrol instead.

I think the point is that people just should think about their motoring before jumping into a diesel. If either of our cars was only doing a few miles around town each day, I think I'd have petrols for both. Even at the mile I do, I'm 50/50 for petrol or diesel, but I'd say I'm doing 2 hours of cruising for every half hour of start/stop, so it's not so marginal for me. If doing mainly start/stop driving you really have to consider whether diesel makes sense.

Still wonder about the long term maintenance costs of say a 1.4 turbo petrol dragging a Passat around though, or this 1 litre engines that Ford have out now. Surely any machine which spends much more time operating at it's technical limits is going to eventually be more troublesome than one that doesn't.

Jesus.

shedweller wrote: »

Blown out of proportion i think.

I agree with that. We've a diesel too and I know a few others also and there's been no DMF/DPF issues at all. Also, half the taxi fleet must be permanently in the Garage getting these things repaired if they're as flimsy as people claim. Not to mention thousands of work vans used primarily in Cities.

I'm not sure why its blown up the way it is but perhaps its something to do with petrol-head's dislike/fear of the Devil's juice?

Jesus.

Valetta wrote: »

To scare more people into buying petrol cars because they think "daysul" is "the fuel of the devil".
It's scaremongering by so-called petrol heads who think everyone should be driving >3.5 Ltr. petrol guzzlers.

Just read this post.

Great minds, eh Valetta?

wonski

Manufacturers and distributors also believe that as emissions drop further from next September, tax rates may well increase at the same time.
“As we go further down towards zero emissions, the tax rates may well follow,” says Sheridan.

So there is a cheaper motor tax for post 08 "clean" diesels and now they introduce new emission legislation because the diesels are not clean enough.
I no longer know what is clean and what isn't

PauloMN

wonski wrote: »

So there is a cheaper motor tax for post 08 "clean" diesels and now they introduce new emission legislation because the diesels are not clean enough.
I no longer know what is clean and what isn't

Know the feeling!! A friend of mine living in Sweden told me that it's diesels they consider to be the dirty cars there, and larger engined petrols are more common (and are cheaper in terms of tax from what I gather). He can't understand the low emissions tax on diesels here.

SleeperService

wonski wrote: »

So there is a cheaper motor tax for post 08 "clean" diesels and now they introduce new emission legislation because the diesels are not clean enough.
I no longer know what is clean and what isn't

I think maybe science has caught up with common sense - there's far worse things than CO2, but perhaps not as easily taxed...

stimpson

Jesus. wrote: »

Also, half the taxi fleet must be permanently in the Garage getting these things repaired if they're as flimsy as people claim. Not to mention thousands of work vans used primarily in Cities.

I know a taxi driver who has put a solid flywheel into his Mondeo at stupidly low mileage. I've heard it's down to pulling away from low revs, which a lot of taxi drivers do, I assume for perceived economy reasons. Apparently if you keep your revs above 1500 it causes less stress on the DMF. Some cars are worse than others - the taxi driver reckoned that Octavias were the worst offender.

Also, regarding DPF's - they're fine as long as you take the car on a good long spin. I used to drive into the city centre every day in my diesel and once every other week I'd take a 100km spin out to see the in-laws and never a problem.

I thought it was interesting that it's a Ford exec that put forward the 25,000km break even. Trying to shift a few more EcoBoosts! I did the sums on my diesel and allowing for a DPF, DMF or turbo every 3 years, I'd still come out on top after motor tax, mpg and servicing were taken into account.

Having said all that, my daily drive is now LPG

JC01

In response to valleta and Jesus- I would consider myself one of these "petrol heads" your on about but I wouldn't try talking many people outta buying modern diesals, getting nixers doing injectors, turbos, and dpfs adds a decent chunk to my pay check at the end of the week, so I'm not gonna start trying to convince people who won't Listin to common sense anyways. All a lot of Irish motorists see is 'da cheeeep taaaax' and 654mpg figures (claimed manufacturer).

Real world driving situations and basic mechanical understanding rarely come into it.

And to answer some of your points; van fleets and taxis do spend half there lives in the garage and wait until you've 100k on that car you use for city driving. Worst case scenario turbo frigged from stop start and not heating/cooling properly, DMF frigged from wear and tear and that'll probably take your clutch with it, DPF for obvious reasons, and god forbid injector troubles and your looking at a 5k repair bill easy. Compare that to the same petrol and worst case scenario is it might need a clutch and a service at 100k so a 500-700e bill.

Valetta

JC01 wrote: »

In response to valleta and Jesus- I would consider myself one of these "petrol heads" your on about but I wouldn't try talking many people outta buying modern diesals, getting nixers doing injectors, turbos, and dpfs adds a decent chunk to my pay check at the end of the week, so I'm not gonna start trying to convince people who won't Listin to common sense anyways. All a lot of Irish motorists see is 'da cheeeep taaaax' and 654mpg figures (claimed manufacturer).

Real world driving situations and basic mechanical understanding rarely come into it.

And to answer some of your points; van fleets and taxis do spend half there lives in the garage and wait until you've 100k on that car you use for city driving. Worst case scenario turbo frigged from stop start and not heating/cooling properly, DMF frigged from wear and tear and that'll probably take your clutch with it, DPF for obvious reasons, and god forbid injector troubles and your looking at a 5k repair bill easy. Compare that to the same petrol and worst case scenario is it might need a clutch and a service at 100k so a 500-700e bill.

This post has it all.

Sensationalising, exageration and patronising all in one.

unkel

Valetta wrote: »

Car was 4 years old when I bought it and had 35K miles on it then, so mileage now is circa, 65K.

So 8 year old diesel and only 8k miles per year? Ticking time bomb, I tell ya! :eek:

I personally think diesel is the fuel of the devil and decent engines must be petrol and big. Preferably V8

Leonard Hofstadter

unkel wrote: »

I personally think diesel is the fuel of the devil and decent engines must be petrol and big. Preferably V8

Well I wouldn't go as far as a V8, but yes of course, petrol is much, much better. Once the number of cylinders goes beyond four, it's a whole other world:). A naturally aspirated straight six petrol is just magic:)!

_Kaiser_

Hmm.. I dunno, I think it depends on how the car is looked after really

My last 06 diesel Passat did mostly motorway/N-road driving and I sold it with 243,000km on the clock in the summer (just under 200,000 of which was mine over 5 years). DMF needed changing once but it went fairly early on and never any problems with it since then. Because of the miles I was doing though the car was serviced 2/3 times a year as no car equals no job, but also because I just don't LIKE anything being wrong with my cars - even a side bulb out annoys me!

My current 05 diesel A6 does significantly less mileage as I'm now living/working in Dublin (10 minute drive to/from the office) which does concern me as she rarely gets to full temp BUT that said she gets a good 2.5 hour (each way) high-speed motorway spin every fortnight, so that hopefully balances it out. She also gets a spin across the M50 during the week every so often too though I'm thinking maybe I should do this more often?

Either way I get my cars looked at as soon as something comes up or when a service is due. It's not cheap but this approach hasn't let me down yet.

No Pants

jca wrote: »

I'd forgotten how silent a petrol engine is

You can easily fix that by pressing the pedal on the right.

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

Well they won't have DPFs or DMFs to go very expensively wrong

DMFs are fitted to petrol cars also and the numbers are growing as far as I know.

My mk5 GTI has a DMF for instance.

JerCotter7

Jazmin Scrawny Antelope wrote: »

DMFs are fitted to petrol cars also and the numbers are growing as far as I know.

My mk5 GTI has a DMF for instance.

Less stress with a petrol as the engines are smoother so less likely to give trouble. Some still do but less often.

unkel

captainspeed wrote: »

A naturally aspirated straight six petrol is just magic:)!

That's what I have

It's 10 years old. Bought it cheap (as the engine is over 2l) and I expect near zero maintenance. No DMF, no DPF, no turbo and I do oil / filter changes and minor stuff myself. Just passed the NCT last week. Good till April 2015!

I do lots and lots of short city trips with a cold engine and my annual mileage is small. Hallelujah for everyone else buying diesels, leaving the petrols to us for pennies

Jesus.

jca wrote: »

I'd forgotten how silent a petrol engine is, I regularly glance at the rev-counter thinking it has stalled.

Bet you don't think that out on the Motorway though

Jesus.

captainspeed wrote: »

Well I wouldn't go as far as a V8, but yes of course, petrol is much, much better.

That's an opinion. Some people actually prefer the drive a daysul delivers, believe it or not. And I'm one of 'em!

unkel

Jesus. wrote: »

Bet you don't think that out on the Motorway though

A 4-pot diesel at 2000rpm at 120km/h is a lot noisier than a petrol V8 at same. Believe me

The latter typically comes in far superior package too

unkel

Jesus. wrote: »

Some people actually prefer the drive a daysul delivers

What great drive is that?

idle - nothing there at all
1000rpm - still nothing
1500rpm - there's more power in a 1l petrol
2000rpm - off we go!
4000rpm - that's all folks, good night



And most diesel drivers don't even ever see 2k rpm, LOL!

I admit, you'll save yourself the odd tenner at the filling station though, nothing to laugh at there!

Jesus.

unkel wrote: »

A 4-pot diesel at 2000rpm at 120km/h is a lot noisier than a petrol V8 at same. Believe me

The latter typically comes in far superior package too

Dead right on all that Unkel me boy!

But a small capacity 4-pot petrol, very generally speaking, has to be revved pretty hard at 75-85mph compared to a good ole turbo daysul.

If we're talking about Motorway cruising and it being very expensive to run an 8-pot in Ireland, I think the divil's tractor engine is the way to go

Jesus.

unkel wrote: »

What great drive is that?
idle - nothing there at all
1000rpm - still nothing
1500rpm - there's more power in a 1l petrol
2000rpm - off we go!
4000rpm - that's all folks, good night

And most diesel drivers don't even ever see 2k rpm, LOL!
I admit, you'll save yourself the odd tenner at the filling station though, nothing to laugh at there!

Taking the MPG and juice prices out of it for a moment, honestly I do find the low-end torque of a diesel to be satisfying. I know most guys prefer to have a car that they can rev the sh*t out of but some folk just like effortless acceleration and comfort. That's where the diesel comes into its own, assuming we're talking about average small capacity motors here.

As for the 4k goodnight, that's what a gearbox is for

Ask Doc Fuzzenstein, he explains it much better than I

Hoagy

Jesus. wrote: »

But a small capacity 4-pot petrol, very generally speaking, has to be revved pretty hard at 75-85mph compared to a good ole turbo daysul.

I reluctantly bought a 1.2TSI Fabia last year, but I was pleasantly surprised to discover that 100KM/h comes at 2400rpm and 120KM/h at 2800rpm.
At about 45 mpg on the motorway, too.

unkel

Jesus. wrote: »

I think the divil's tractor engine is the way to go

+1

If you don't mind the noise / rattle and you don't mind the occasional €1,000 repair bill

Great for the aul tax though. Neighbour does high mileage in his BMW535d (340BHP) and pays €750 per year in tax. About the same as an old 2l (120BHP) car (petrol or diesel) doing a few k miles per year...

shedweller

unkel wrote: »

That's what I have

It's 10 years old. Bought it cheap (as the engine is over 2l) and I expect near zero maintenance. No DMF, no DPF, no turbo and I do oil / filter changes and minor stuff myself. Just passed the NCT last week. Good till April 2015!

I do lots and lots of short city trips with a cold engine and my annual mileage is small. Hallelujah for everyone else buying diesels, leaving the petrols to us for pennies

Horses for courses. You know that, right?
I'd love a petrol V8 or straight 6 but i'd lose an extra few weeks wages just fuelling the damn thing! I've too many other bills to pay!

unkel

shedweller wrote: »

Horses for courses. You know that, right?

Of course. I'm the first to concede that if you do 30k miles / 50k km per year, you'd be a fool (or rich) not to drive a diesel

shedweller

unkel wrote: »

What great drive is that?

idle - nothing there at all
1000rpm - still nothing
1500rpm - there's more power in a 1l petrol
2000rpm - off we go!
4000rpm - that's all folks, good night



And most diesel drivers don't even ever see 2k rpm, LOL!

I admit, you'll save yourself the odd tenner at the filling station though, nothing to laugh at there!

My life is incomplete! I rarely see 2k rpm! Noooo!!
And my fuel bill is half what an average diesel would cost me, let alone a straight six petrol.
Look, you're biased, i'm biased also. Surely we're allowed drive what we want. And you get your cars cheap to boot! If we all wanted the big engines theyd cost way more!
Relax mon!!

Tea 1000

Jesus. wrote: »

Taking the MPG and juice prices out of it for a moment, honestly I do find the low-end torque of a diesel to be satisfying. I know most guys prefer to have a car that they can rev the sh*t out of but some folk just like effortless acceleration and comfort. That's where the diesel comes into its own, assuming we're talking about average small capacity motors here.

As for the 4k goodnight, that's what a gearbox is for

Ask Doc Fuzzenstein, he explains it much better than I

Gearbox? You mean that clunky, overly heavy awkward yoke they fit in diesels? Petrols have sweet, slick-shifting versions of those too!!
If anything petrols are more effortless! Only 1 gearchange from 0 to 60mph! That's 50% less effort than a typical diesel's 2 gearchanges...

wonski

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Gearbox? You mean that clunky, overly heavy awkward yoke they fit in diesels? Petrols have sweet, slick-shifting versions of those too!!
If anything petrols are more effortless! Only 1 gearchange from 0 to 60mph! That's 50% less effort than a typical diesel's 2 gearchanges...

Not true, imo. The diesels (usually) require less gear changes - unless we are talking Ferrari vs Yaris diesel

unkel

wonski wrote: »

Not true, imo. The diesels (usually) require less gear changes

I might be wrong here but I can't see a typical modern diesel do 90km/h in second gear. Most petrols can. That's the point Tea 1000 is making.

wonski

unkel wrote: »

I might be wrong here but I can't see a typical modern diesel do 90km/h in second gear. Most petrols can. That's the point Tea 1000 is making.

Most (if not all) petrols can, but on the top of the rev range which is 5-7k (or more). Some are undriveable in 2nd gear at that speed.
In the overall driving experience when it comes to overtaking the diesel is much easier to apply a power without going down by 2/3 gears.
I have very limited experience of diesel, but this seems to be their advantage anyway.
IMO;)

JerCotter7

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Gearbox? You mean that clunky, overly heavy awkward yoke they fit in diesels? Petrols have sweet, slick-shifting versions of those too!!
If anything petrols are more effortless! Only 1 gearchange from 0 to 60mph! That's 50% less effort than a typical diesel's 2 gearchanges...

I can do 0-90mph in 3rd gear. Lot less effort than changing 5 times in a diesel.