An arguement for petrol?

Old diesel

Found this on Autocars website

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/peugeot/308/first-drives/peugeot-308-allure-12-e-thp-puretech-130-auto-first-drive-review

So according to them - its the best model in the range - even though its PETROL.

Whats most impressive is its 119 g/c02 - in AN AUTOMATIC.

I wonder when Irish dealers/distributers - will get brave and start pushing cars like this - as being A GOOD option as a CAR to actually OWN.

I think the buying public needs educating on how petrol could work.

Shame its only a first drive type article - so no fuel figures

Id be seriously thinking of replacing the family car here with one of these - but I just know my parents won't get on with the dash/steering design on these

corktina

ah a Peugeot 308 in petrol....no thanks.... (mind you same applies to diesel, hybrid, nuclear, AA batteries, and twisted elastic if it's a Pug

Old diesel

corktina wrote: »

ah a Peugeot 308 in petrol....no thanks.... (mind you same applies to diesel, hybrid, nuclear, AA batteries, and twisted elastic if it's a Pug

Fair point

I meant it more as an argument for petrol in general rather then the 308

Meaning the advances in petrol are weakning the case for diesel for many - if distributors/dealers are willing to be brave and offer the option.

visual

Old diesel wrote: »

Fair point

I meant it more as an argument for petrol in general rather then the 308

Meaning the advances in petrol are weakning the case for diesel for many - if distributors/dealers are willing to be brave and offer the option.

All the technology of small diesels trasfered over to even smaller petrol and not expecting issues is optimistic

Old diesel

visual wrote: »

All the technology of small diesels trasfered over to even smaller petrol and not expecting issues is optimistic

Unfortunately all modern cars are getting more complex

Youd be hoping ALL the lessons of pushing diesel tech forward over the last 10 years have being learned :eek:

But 100 ps in a 1 litre petrol is somewhat similar to 200 ps in a diesel - but your probably right

Leonard Hofstadter

Old diesel wrote: »

Fair point

I meant it more as an argument for petrol in general rather then the 308

Meaning the advances in petrol are weakning the case for diesel for many - if distributors/dealers are willing to be brave and offer the option.

Indeed, won't happen though due to the sheep mentality in Ireland.

For many cars, though, the price gap is so small that even if you did say 5000 miles a year you'd still be better off with a diesel.

These new generation cleaner petrols with low CO2 and motor tax bills need to be at least €2,000 cheaper if there's any hope of people buying what is a more apporpriate engine for most private buyers (and that's before we get to all the driving and refinement advantages of petrols engines, no matter how much the diesel fanbois wish to believe, they're still uncouth, clattery, unrefined yokes besides even a humdrum small capacity three or four cylinder petrol).

The Ford Focus was only €300 cheaper with the 1.0 Ecoboost compared to the 1.6 diesel equivalent, no wonder nobody buys it.

Speaking of the Focus, the new model for 2015 will have petrol engines with below 100 g/km CO2, so only €180 motor tax, and will in fact be in the same tax band as the diesel.

Let's see how Ford will price it....

corkgsxr

visual wrote: »

All the technology of small diesels trasfered over to even smaller petrol and not expecting issues is optimistic

Not quite. Much lower boost. Injectors in petrols are much bigger so much less likely to block.

No dpf.

Should be less problems.

Leonard Hofstadter

corkgsxr wrote: »

Not quite. Much lower boost. Injectors in petrols are much bigger so much less likely to block.

No dpf.

Should be less problems.

No DMF problems either. A lot of petrols have them these days of course, but it's not a problem because petrols of course have vastly superior refinement and don't vibrate, clatter and rattle like a diesel does, so the DMF has a much easier life.

dr.fuzzenstein

Ah, this thread again. I'm happy with my clatterbox. I'll leave you to your pub talk. Nighty night. If the titanic now came with a 1 liter engine, people would buy it and swear she's fierce fasht.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

There's only one car with a small engine id buy

A diahstu coure 660cc turbo 4wd

After that 2L and above only from here on out !

Ninap

Currently in the US where everything is, of course, petrol. One small and overlooked side effect is that the streets, when full of traffic, are much quieter than back home due to low idle noise and not so many badly maintained diesel busses. (I'm now off to hop into my 6.2L Escalade.)

Markcheese

captainspeed wrote: »

No DMF problems either. A lot of petrols have them these days of course, but it's not a problem because petrols of course have vastly superior refinement and don't vibrate, clatter and rattle like a diesel does, so the DMF has a much easier life.

But aren't a lot of the new "small" petrols 3 cylinder ? Making them vibrate a lot more..

jca

Will boards ever use a spellcheck of some description soon so posters can spell big words like argument?

Hachiko

nazi grammars everywhere.

ShaunieVW

My real worry is that there wont be an decent 10 year old cars to buy in the future. Now we have GTIs for nothing ep3 type r's, 540i's, loads of luxobarges powered buy decent engines. Nowadays, everything is diesel powered and the rarity of the high power petrol cars are pushing the price up. I dont want a crap 10 year old unreliable diesel yoke .

Old diesel

ShaunieVW wrote: »

My real worry is that there wont be an decent 10 year old cars to buy in the future. Now we have GTIs for nothing ep3 type r's, 540i's, loads of luxobarges powered buy decent engines. Nowadays, everything is diesel powered and the rarity of the high power petrol cars are pushing the price up. I dont want a crap 10 year old unreliable diesel yoke .

You've also got the frustrating situation where if you want to upgrade - to something a lot newer - you could potentially end up "upgrading" to something pretty new - but also less reliable then the 200 k miles plus - over 10 years old car that's being replaced :eek:

Gazzmonkey

captainspeed wrote: »

No DMF problems either. A lot of petrols have them these days of course, but it's not a problem because petrols of course have vastly superior refinement and don't vibrate, clatter and rattle like a diesel does, so the DMF has a much easier life.

The inferior torque in a petrol would help preserve the flywheel also.

How unreliable do folks here think modern diesels are compared to older cars? Toyota and Honda earned their reliability reputation as cars used to break in days gone by too

dr.fuzzenstein

Augeo wrote: »

How unreliable do folks here think modern diesels are compared to older cars? Toyota and Honda earned their reliability reputation as cars used to break in days gone by too

I think modern cars are pretty reliable. I remember the 70's/80's where anything over 100k km was banger/scrapper territory.
Engines shot at that time, gearbox not far behind, diff whining, rust getting worse (nevermind starting), today's cars barely notice that sort of mileage.
If you look at the mileage meter of old cars, you will notice they only go up as far as 5 figures, once it had gone round, it was borderline finished.
Today 300k km is nowhere near finished and if the engine or gearbox blew up at that sort of mileage, I would be seriously pissed.

Hachiko

its more common for issues to arise with new diesels than petrols, i mean cars 3-4 years old which is very new, that has not changed. Its why I shun diesels for the cancerous plumes of smoke they emit, the problems they can bring you and how much more refined petrols are. many people are totally brainwashed by diesels.

dr.fuzzenstein

Hachiko wrote: »

its more common for issues to arise with new diesels than petrols, i mean cars 3-4 years old which is very new, that has not changed. Its why I shun diesels for the cancerous plumes of smoke they emit, the problems they can bring you and how much more refined petrols are. many people are totally brainwashed by diesels.

If those 1 liter milk carton engines can do 500 k km I believe it.
Pubtalk by people who never owned a diesel.

Well said DeF
I find the hysteria about the supposed unreliability of modern diesels fairly amusing.

I'd prefer my old petrol BMWs to my current eco diesel no doubt though.

Del2005

Augeo wrote: »

How unreliable do folks here think modern diesels are compared to older cars? Toyota and Honda earned their reliability reputation as cars used to break in days gone by too

All modern cars are super reliable. Unfortunately people aren't and the low motor tax made people buy cars with engines unsuitable for their usage or more importantly people don't know how to manage modern diesel engines. I can see similar issues with the small cc turbo petrols unless manufacturers fit turbo timers and that isn't going to happen when they can sell a replacement turbo instead.

cerastes

visual wrote: »

All the technology of small diesels trasfered over to even smaller petrol and not expecting issues is optimistic

What technology? is being transferred over?

captainspeed wrote: »

No DMF problems either. A lot of petrols have them these days of course, but it's not a problem because petrols of course have vastly superior refinement and don't vibrate, clatter and rattle like a diesel does, so the DMF has a much easier life.

Modern petrols have DMF's? didnt know that, to what end? if petrols are so smooth and refined and they have refined it further, what is the purpose or benefit of adding a DMF to a petrol here?

Del2005 wrote: »

All modern cars are super reliable. Unfortunately people aren't and the low motor tax made people buy cars with engines unsuitable for their usage or more importantly people don't know how to manage modern diesel engines. I can see similar issues with the small cc turbo petrols unless manufacturers fit turbo timers and that isn't going to happen when they can sell a replacement turbo instead.

All there is to it surely is for people to buy vehicles fit for the purpose they require and even if they dont just then maintain it according to their usage.
Im not so sure there will be as much problems with small petrol engines (Im not so sure about 3 cylinders) compared to unsuitable diesels. I think even in medium sized cars that are used for short journeys a small petrol wont be as much a problem as you dont require a large engine for such usage.
I still think 1.3 would be the limit for a larger car, I haven't heard much about the 1.3 offering by mazda, sounds promising. As for the timers and turbos, as much as they should be fitted, it could be done manually by the driver.

Not only modern petrols have DMFs, They were on silky smooth Bavarian straight 6s from the 80s.

Jesus.

cerastes wrote: »

I still think 1.3 would be the limit for a larger car.

Wouldn't touch a 1.3 in a larger car on a point of principle

cerastes

Jesus. wrote: »

Wouldn't touch a 1.3 in a larger car on a point of principle

1.0 litres are here now/soon? or being touted and 1.2 litres in certain vehicles are already here, for most people engines larger than 1.6 isn't necessary just doing local short journeys, a lot of the power is used for getting the vehicle moving, the amount of power used to keep it moving, doesnt require large engines. I wouldnt avoid something on principle if it worked, which is why Im interested to find out, despite my own reservations.
Although I dont want to be and am unlikely to be the first to try it out, there will always be someone who will take up a new phone/car/tv/device before me, I like things to be tried and tested before I venture in with what I can spare.

Id be interested to hear how anyone with the 1.2litres in the likes of VW or Skoda Octavia are getting on now? whats their opinions.
Im interested to see if mazda bring out their skyactiv-G 1.3 here, Ive seen a few new Mazda 6 and some (fewer) Mazda 3's, but Im not certain they have that 1.3 engine, looks like it's a 1.5 engine.

visual

Google and sales brochures isn't going to extend little petrol engines life that has to produce higher bhp and lower mpg pulling a heavy car around.

It will last the warranty period sure but I wouldn't be expecting 100's of thousand miles out of it.

Zubeneschamali

Augeo wrote: »

I find the hysteria about the supposed unreliability of modern diesels fairly amusing.

My 08 S-Max crossed 250,000 km recently - it's a PSA/Ford 2.0 turbodiesel. No problems with DPF, DMF, injectors, belts or any of the other diesel bugaboos we hear about.

It did suffer a bent inner driveshaft at 110,000 km. No idea what that was about.

Anjobe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My 08 S-Max crossed 250,000 km recently - it's a PSA/Ford 2.0 turbodiesel. No problems with DPF, DMF, injectors, belts or any of the other diesel bugaboos we hear about.

It did suffer a bent inner driveshaft at 110,000 km. No idea what that was about.

Yes, but one of my neighbours had a C4 Picasso 2.0 HDi which broke a timing belt and wrecked the engine when the car was 9 months old with < 20,000 Km on it. Anecdotal evidence of a single car or a small number of cars is of little value, and while issues with diesels are clearly wildly exaggerated in many peoples minds they are still real.

Personally I prefer petrol engined cars and do not do a high enough mileage for it to make much difference to me in terms of fuel costs, so I welcome the recent attempts of manufacturers to provide low-tax, economical alternatives to diesel. I don't think we know yet how reliable these small turbo charged petrol engines will be - are the VAG TSi timing chain issues characteristic of these type of engines or just a flaw in this particular design?

Old diesel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My 08 S-Max crossed 250,000 km recently - it's a PSA/Ford 2.0 turbodiesel. No problems with DPF, DMF, injectors, belts or any of the other diesel bugaboos we hear about.

It did suffer a bent inner driveshaft at 110,000 km. No idea what that was about.

Actually - the 2.0 HDI engine seems to be one of the better modern diesel engines - along with the 2.0 D4D Toyota and the Euro 3 Volvo 2.4 D5 - from what I see and hear.

The point on 70s/80s cars is fair enough - but I think in the late 80s through to early 2000s - there WAS an era of cars with very good reliability that modern cars due to their complexity struggle to match.

Cars like Carina IIs, late model Bluebirds, the 92 to 95 Corolla, K11 Micras, various Civic and Accords - they were all hitting high standards of reliability.

The thing about modern cars now - is that yes - they are pretty reliable in terms of starting every morning and not breaking down very often - but the bills they can land you with can be frustratingly annoying.

Some manufacturers like VAG, Mazda, BMW and others dropping the ball on some of their engines - doesn't help

Old diesel

Paulor984 wrote: »

It's a disgrace

Hi and welcome

What is it that's a disgrace - modern reliability???, Peugeot bringing out a petrol 308???

Zubeneschamali

Old diesel wrote: »

The point on 70s/80s cars is fair enough - but I think in the late 80s through to early 2000s - there WAS an era of cars with very good reliability that modern cars due to their complexity struggle to match.

Well, folks bang on about the reliability of the old PD 1.9 diesel, but what was the service interval? Attention every 6000 miles? I'd be in 4 times a year for oil and filters! Even if it never broke, it'd be costing a fortune in garage bills.

Old diesel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, folks bang on about the reliability of the old PD 1.9 diesel, but what was the service interval? Attention every 6000 miles? I'd be in 4 times a year for oil and filters! Even if it never broke, it'd be costing a fortune in garage bills.

2 to 3 k in repair bills is a killer too

Especially if its down to design flaws on the cars .

Old diesel

Apologies - weve gone of topic

jca

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, folks bang on about the reliability of the old PD 1.9 diesel, but what was the service interval? Attention every 6000 miles? I'd be in 4 times a year for oil and filters! Even if it never broke, it'd be costing a fortune in garage bills.

Service interval is 9000 mies/15,000 km. At your mileage 2 services one year with 3 services the following year. 4 of those services would be just oil and filter which even through a main dealer are about €130, hardly expensive. Oil is cheaper than turbo's!!!

gooner99

I see mazda now have a new 1.5 skyactive petrol thats meant to return around 55mpg which doesn;t use a turbo, like the small 0.9, 1.0 and 1.2 turbo petrols on sale. I understand these small turbo petrols get no where near the mpg the manufacturers claim.Wonder if this engine from mazda fairs any better.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

jca wrote: »

Service interval is 9000 mies/15,000 km. At your mileage 2 services one year with 3 services the following year. 4 of those services would be just oil and filter which even through a main dealer are about €130, hardly expensive. Oil is cheaper than turbo's!!!

Sure you could do it yourself for less than half that!

jca

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Sure you could do it yourself for less than half that!

Certainly, but the poster I quoted was referring to "high" servicing costs using garages.

cerastes

gooner99 wrote: »

I see mazda now have a new 1.5 skyactive petrol thats meant to return around 55mpg which doesn;t use a turbo, like the small 0.9, 1.0 and 1.2 turbo petrols on sale. I understand these small turbo petrols get no where near the mpg the manufacturers claim.Wonder if this engine from mazda fairs any better.

are you saying its a 1.5 thats meant to return 55mpg which doesnt or
a 1.5 thats meant to return 55mpg which doesnt have a turbo? (edit like the smaller petrols)
Ive read about the 1.3 skyactiv G (gasoline/petrol), but I thought it did have a turbo, Id thought it was a high compression engine, thought the 1.5 was a scaled version of it, so guessed it would have a turbo and achieved efficiencies through high compression too? They both come in low on the co2 g/km so tax is low, to help persuade anyone thinking of diesel but that doesnt do the miles and the 1.3 has a supposed claim of 71mpg US, I did a conversion online which suggests that is 85mpg imp, Id initially thought that figure would go the other direction.
Saloon and hatch mazda 3 look nice, but with a 2.2 diesel in the same emission category as the 1.3 and one below the 1.5 and available in higher trim levels, you'd wonder if people would choose it at all.

Anjobe

cerastes wrote: »

are you saying its a 1.5 thats meant to return 55mpg which doesnt or
a 1.5 thats meant to return 55mpg which doesnt have a turbo? (edit like the smaller petrols)
Ive read about the 1.3 skyactiv G (gasoline/petrol), but I thought it did have a turbo, Id thought it was a high compression engine, thought the 1.5 was a scaled version of it, so guessed it would have a turbo and achieved efficiencies through high compression too? They both come in low on the co2 g/km so tax is low, to help persuade anyone thinking of diesel but that doesnt do the miles and the 1.3 has a supposed claim of 71mpg US, I did a conversion online which suggests that is 85mpg imp, Id initially thought that figure would go the other direction.
Saloon and hatch mazda 3 look nice, but with a 2.2 diesel in the same emission category as the 1.3 and one below the 1.5 and available in higher trim levels, you'd wonder if people would choose it at all.

Mazda SkyActive-G engines use high compression ratios, up to 14:1, to improve fuel efficiency. They have no turbo. The reason turbo charged engines fall so far short of the manufacturers fuel consumption figures is that the NEDC test cycle allows the engine to be run with such gentle throttle inputs that the turbo is off boost the whole time, and in the real world no one drives like that.

Interestingly Mazda are also developing gen 2 SkyActive-G engines with compression ratios up to 18:1 and using HCCI (compression ignition!).

BigEejit

Anjobe wrote: »

Interestingly Mazda are also developing gen 2 SkyActive-G engines with compression ratios up to 18:1 and using HCCI (compression ignition!).

Very interesting indeed. Will that high compression result in a lot more noise I wonder? Fair play to them anyway for doing something different.

gooner99

cerastes wrote: »

are you saying its a 1.5 thats meant to return 55mpg which doesnt or
a 1.5 thats meant to return 55mpg which doesnt have a turbo? (edit like the smaller petrols)
Ive read about the 1.3 skyactiv G (gasoline/petrol), but I thought it did have a turbo, Id thought it was a high compression engine, thought the 1.5 was a scaled version of it, so guessed it would have a turbo and achieved efficiencies through high compression too? They both come in low on the co2 g/km so tax is low, to help persuade anyone thinking of diesel but that doesnt do the miles and the 1.3 has a supposed claim of 71mpg US, I did a conversion online which suggests that is 85mpg imp, Id initially thought that figure would go the other direction.
Saloon and hatch mazda 3 look nice, but with a 2.2 diesel in the same emission category as the 1.3 and one below the 1.5 and available in higher trim levels, you'd wonder if people would choose it at all.

Yes as the other poster clarified I meant it has no turbo. wasn't aware that there had been a 1.3 version knocking about for a few years. What like is it in terms of mpg in the real world?

cerastes

Anjobe wrote: »

Mazda SkyActive-G engines use high compression ratios, up to 14:1, to improve fuel efficiency. They have no turbo. The reason turbo charged engines fall so far short of the manufacturers fuel consumption figures is that the NEDC test cycle allows the engine to be run with such gentle throttle inputs that the turbo is off boost the whole time, and in the real world no one drives like that.

Interestingly Mazda are also developing gen 2 SkyActive-G engines with compression ratios up to 18:1 and using HCCI (compression ignition!).

I looked it and when I heard about it, I thought 1.3, petrol, good fuel efficiency, low co2 emissions, probably suit a lot of people that were swayed to diesels for the low tax.
I did think there was a turbo on it, I saw some back to back turbo online somewhere but now looking again, it looks like I misread something else, maybe it was the 2.2 diesel? either way, to me its one less thing to go wrong, no turbo is an added plus.
I hope people buy these 1.3's are dissapointed with them so I can get a nice 1.3 Mazda 3 second hand in the future. A lot of people driving larger cc petrols or diesels dont need them, me included.

gooner99 wrote: »

Yes as the other poster clarified I meant it has no turbo. wasn't aware that there had been a 1.3 version knocking about for a few years. What like is it in terms of mpg in the real world?

I think the 1.3 was the original skyactiv engine, it was the first one I came across when I came across it by accident online I think. I think I was looking up the Mazda 3 and found the 1.3 link from there? I know the US mpg figures are 71 mpg, but thats US gallons and I believe based on a Japanese test, that equates to 89mpg in Imp, sounds too good to be true, but even if its 70% of that, it'd be in the 60mpg range. What that works out at in a real world urban commute, I dont know, but its got to compare with diesels on extra urban commutes, without the problems of diesels. There is still the 1.5 and I think 1.3 for doing urban commutes is more than adequete.
Whatever of it, when a car comes out new, I can take a like to it or not, maybe because of the economic circumstances, there arent as many Mazda 3's around as say the Opel Astras, which I liked and then wore off me as they became so prolific.

(if I could afford) I wouldnt buy a new car based on the figures, but if I was replacing and needed one, I'd definitely consider the Mazda 3 new, although I prefer if someone else irons out the problems first, Id probably jump at this myself.

edit
real world performance, just reading it myself.
http://www.livelifedrive.com/malaysia/news/view/150350/why-mazda-doesn-t-turbocharge-its-skyactiv-g-engines---we-ask-the-father-of-skyactiv

gooner99

cerastes wrote: »

I looked it and when I heard about it, I thought 1.3, petrol, good fuel efficiency, low co2 emissions, probably suit a lot of people that were swayed to diesels for the low tax.
I did think there was a turbo on it, I saw some back to back turbo online somewhere but now looking again, it looks like I misread something else, maybe it was the 2.2 diesel? either way, to me its one less thing to go wrong, no turbo is an added plus.
I hope people buy these 1.3's are dissapointed with them so I can get a nice 1.3 Mazda 3 second hand in the future. A lot of people driving larger cc petrols or diesels dont need them, me included.



I think the 1.3 was the original skyactiv engine, it was the first one I came across when I came across it by accident online I think. I think I was looking up the Mazda 3 and found the 1.3 link from there? I know the US mpg figures are 71 mpg, but thats US gallons and I believe based on a Japanese test, that equates to 89mpg in Imp, sounds too good to be true, but even if its 70% of that, it'd be in the 60mpg range. What that works out at in a real world urban commute, I dont know, but its got to compare with diesels on extra urban commutes, without the problems of diesels. There is still the 1.5 and I think 1.3 for doing urban commutes is more than adequete.
Whatever of it, when a car comes out new, I can take a like to it or not, maybe because of the economic circumstances, there arent as many Mazda 3's around as say the Opel Astras, which I liked and then wore off me as they became so prolific.

(if I could afford) I wouldnt buy a new car based on the figures, but if I was replacing and needed one, I'd definitely consider the Mazda 3 new, although I prefer if someone else irons out the problems first, Id probably jump at this myself.

edit
real world performance, just reading it myself.
http://www.livelifedrive.com/malaysia/news/view/150350/why-mazda-doesn-t-turbocharge-its-skyactiv-g-engines---we-ask-the-father-of-skyactiv

Sorry,I misread your post.I thought you actually had a 1.3 skyactive. I don't seem to be able to find online if that 1.3 skyactive was even on sale here in the 3.But I'd even imagine that this new 1.5 is not even on ours roads.I bet the majority of 3 sales since these new petrol's engines were launched were diesels anyway.But surely there must be some of these engines knocking around in the 2.

Anjobe

gooner99 wrote: »

Sorry,I misread your post.I thought you actually had a 1.3 skyactive. I don't seem to be able to find online if that 1.3 skyactive was even on sale here in the 3.But I'd even imagine that this new 1.5 is not even on ours roads.I bet the majority of 3 sales since these new petrol's engines were launched were diesels anyway.But surely there must be some of these engines knocking around in the 2.

Yes, no mention of the 1.3 SkyActive-G on Mazda Ireland. The 1.5 is available only on the lowest spec Mazda 3 hatch, which is nearly 4K cheaper than the next trim level with the 2.2D. Both engines are available on the saloon in executive trim with the diesel being almost 2K more expensive. With those price differences we might see some of the petrol versions sold here, although the diesel is still significantly better on performance, fuel consumption and emissions.

The 1.3 engine in the Mazda 2 is the old MZR lump rather than the SkyActive.