Petrol back in business?

Sobanek

Well, it's only been two weeks, but I have to say that a lot of the 151 cars I've seen have been petrol:
Octavia TSI, Focus Ecoboost (do they put 1 litre engine into these??), Seat Leon TSI, Qashqai DiG-T...

Do you think people have finally realised they don't need diesels anymore?

Special Circumstances

Sobanek wrote: »

Do you think people have finally realised they don't need diesels anymore?

All people that got hit with a surprise 4figure bill or two with their previous diesel?

Voodoomelon

I know the 520d might be the exception, but are petrols cheaper than diesels in smaller cars?

Sobanek

Voodoomelon wrote: »

I know the 520d might be the exception, but are petrols cheaper than diesels in smaller cars?

In most of them, yeah.

Yiikes

Id say wait and see. Cheap tax is what started the switch to diesel. Have petrol cars emissions caught up yet? I think the latest Golf GTI has "cheap tax" comparable to diesel engines but is that reflective of other new cars? Every new car Ive seen so far has been diesel but Ive mostly seen SUVs

Foxhole Norman

When we were getting our Clio a few years ago the Petrol was a decent bit cheaper, I'd say it is in cars up to the 5 Series segment.

Toyotafanboi

"people" don't care.

they vast majority of people buying are buying the cheapest version of whatever the dealer has in stock or pushes on them.

i think the european emissions standards are killing diesel overall and forcing manufacturers to produce cleaner and cleaner cars which is seeing a move back to petrol.

either way, i don't think it's the consumer controlling the stock funnily enough.

JohnBoy26

Lots of people who think "diesel is the way to go" are only thinking of cheap tax and fuel economy. They wouldn't know what a dpf or dmf was even if it hit them in the face. Ask these same people in a few years and I'm sure many will be able to tell you exactly what both are.

_Jumper_

Tax should never have been made cheaper on dirty diesels.

France to rank cars for pollution, wants to phase out diesel fuel

reuters.com/article/2014/11/28/france-diesel-idUSL6N0TI42020141128

unkel

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

"people" don't care.

they vast majority of Irish people buying are buying the car with the cheapest version tax

FYP

And yes petrols, particularly small ones, have started to catch up in terms of emissions, thus tax and list price

Leonard Hofstadter

If these prices stay low it will also make petrols (especially large engined ones) that little bit more desirable. Hopefully they will stay low and more people will come back to petrol.

_Jumper_

captainspeed wrote: »

If these prices stay low it will also make petrols (especially large engined ones) that little bit more desirable. Hopefully they will stay low and more people will come back to petrol.

It sure will, the mericans are already back climbing over each to buy "fuel efficent" SUVs.

vox.com/2014/12/10/7369011/oil-prices-SUVs

Leonard Hofstadter

Interesting. If this becomes a sustained trend, expect the car manufacturers to put a lot of pressure on Obama and co to relax the CAFE rules over there. Of course, if the Republicans get in power, the trend might not matter, what with the GOP not exactly being believers in Science (to put it mildly). If the GOP get into power next year and/or the CAFE rules are relaxed, expect America's recent flirtation with small capacity engines with not a lot of cylinders to come to an abrupt end. Hopefully this will persuade the premium manufactures to abandon all this crap of replacing larger engines with six or more cylinders with small capacity engines with four (or even fewer) cylinders - well with petrol engines anyway - Europe is a lost cause with diesel and CO2. A lot of these small capacity engines are nice when they're new and working, but what about when the cars get older and start developing very expensive problems? The US is very much a country that's not very big on small.

Hachiko

Irish people were brainwashed into daysuls, no other way to put it.

At the height of daysul power, every man and his dog had one, it was at a stage where you could hardly get a petrol car from a dealers if you wanted one and if you told someone you got a car that was petrol you would be given odd looks, the usual answer would be 'what size daysul is that then? must be good on juice that'

everything that's wrong about motoring.

Toyotafanboi

captainspeed wrote: »

A lot of these small capacity engines are nice when they're new and working, but what about when the cars get older and start developing very expensive problems?

there's no real evidence that that will happen though. it's generally a piece of speculation thrown in by people trying to build an argument in favour of "there's no replacement for displacement".

the japanese have been doing 3 and 4 cylinder forced induction and twin charged engines for decades now and they are lasting just fine. build them right and they'l last.

i still don't see how cylinders equates to enjoyment, for me personally, anyway. if a car is fun to drive, it's fun to drive. i wouldn't let my opinion be changed if i were to discover a car had 6 cylinders instead of 8, that'd be rather narrow minded.

hfallada

captainspeed wrote: »

Interesting. If this becomes a sustained trend, expect the car manufacturers to put a lot of pressure on Obama and co to relax the CAFE rules over there. Of course, if the Republicans get in power, the trend might not matter, what with the GOP not exactly being believers in Science (to put it mildly). If the GOP get into power next year and/or the CAFE rules are relaxed, expect America's recent flirtation with small capacity engines with not a lot of cylinders to come to an abrupt end. Hopefully this will persuade the premium manufactures to abandon all this crap of replacing larger engines with six or more cylinders with small capacity engines with four (or even fewer) cylinders - well with petrol engines anyway - Europe is a lost cause with diesel and CO2. A lot of these small capacity engines are nice when they're new and working, but what about when the cars get older and start developing very expensive problems? The US is very much a country that's not very big on small.

Americans wanted more fuel efficient cars. One of the reasons why most US car makers went under was people couldnt afford to buy their high margin SUVs anymore. GM makes about 2.5 times more on an SUV than a regular sized car. High oil prices in 2006-2008. Meant consumers werent buying massive SUV anymore, as they were too expensive.

Obamas fuel regulations have helped the US reduce its foreign oil imports, as their cars are more fuel efficient. This a big plus for the US. Plus consumers arent paying as much for fuel, they will spend their income on something else eg cinema, shopping. More efficient cars, mean people are more mobile, as they can travel longer distances. Smaller cars are popular in US cities.

Atlantic Dawn

Plenty are buying "tractors" for the plate at €25k plus to save less than the price of a pint a week in running costs, they are complete with poverty spec, no climate control, no leather seats etc. I think Edward Hobbs needs to go on national tv to tell people to cop the fcuk on.

Leonard Hofstadter

Americans didn't have much of a choice with what they wanted. Americans have always liked large cars with lazy, unstressed, large capacity petrol engines. Obama's meddling with the CAFE rules meant the US manufacturers had no choice but to make cars with smaller displacement engines, irrespective of whether or not American customers wanted them.

The 'cash for clunkers' scheme made people buy small engined cars because the car that was being scrapped had to do I think it was something like 10 mpg worse than the new car that was going to replace it (which is more like about 12-13 mpg on our terms because US gallons are smaller than our gallons). Hence why stuff like the Ford Fiesta got over there. Then that coupled with high oil prices, and they're so much more exposed to it than we are because the tax on 'gas' is so low made Americans shift away from large SUVs.

With an upturn in the US economy plus cheap oil the Americans won't be long in going back to their old ways. Maybe not to the same extent as before (because cars have gotten more fuel efficient since then and the manufacturers have spent a lot of money on the new generation engines and will want to recoup that investment), but it's interesting to note that 2014 was the first year in a VERY long time that the average fuel economy of new cars sold disimproved compared to the previous year, as Americans have started moving back towards larger cars.

People like these new fangled downsized engines now. Let's see what people think of them in a few years' time when problems develop.

Leonard Hofstadter

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

i still don't see how cylinders equates to enjoyment, for me personally, anyway. if a car is fun to drive, it's fun to drive. i wouldn't let my opinion be changed if i were to discover a car had 6 cylinders instead of 8, that'd be rather narrow minded.

I think you need to try a car with more than four cylinders, you won't be long changing your mind;). Of course there are cars with four cylinders that are fun to drive. It's just with six or eight cylinders they'd be even more fun:).

Toyotafanboi

captainspeed wrote: »

I think you need to try a car with more than four cylinders, you won't be long changing your mind;). Of course there are cars with four cylinders that are fun to drive. It's just with six or eight cylinders they'd be even more fun:).

i've previously had only one straight six myself but had the fortune of driving some v6 and v8 stuff back when i was working in that area.

obviously, i guess, the v6 and v8 engines are in far more interesting cars... but it's not the cylinder count on paper that makes them fun. lots of other elements come into play.

sorry but the mindset just grates me because i can't understand it. i mean if we take that 760i posted in the buying section earlier. if you were immediately placed in the driver seat, took it for a drive and it drove beautifully, 440bhp, pulled like a train with effortless power and had an exhaust note that sounded like a thunderstorm, then you got out and discovered it was a highly tuned 3.0 straight 6 and not a 6.0 v12, would you be disappointed? and if so, why?

genuinely. just because you felt as though a more inefficient "soulful" engine should be in it's place?

this may seem like i'm being pedantic or sarcastic, so i apologise. all i'm really trying to say is that to dismiss a car or concept on cylinder count alone seems a bit narrow minded.

Dartz

We need more petrol cars.

The one thing that struck me about most cars in the US, was how quietly they ran. I never noticed how noisy our diesels where until I went somewhere that didn't have near as many.

They're just quieter.

And I'm loving the cheap fuel. A near 25% drop in petrol prices has made me very happy considering the amount of it I fire out the exhaust.

Vicxas

So for people who commute over 100Km a day to and from work would you guys still recommend and diesel?

I have a 1.6 petrol thats costing me about 55 euro a week to get to and from work. Is it worth a diesel for all the bad-mouthing their getting?

listermint

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

i've previously had only one straight six myself but had the fortune of driving some v6 and v8 stuff back when i was working in that area.

obviously, i guess, the v6 and v8 engines are in far more interesting cars... but it's not the cylinder count on paper that makes them fun. lots of other elements come into play.

sorry but the mindset just grates me because i can't understand it. i mean if we take that 760i posted in the buying section earlier. if you were immediately placed in the driver seat, took it for a drive and it drove beautifully, 440bhp, pulled like a train with effortless power and had an exhaust note that sounded like a thunderstorm, then you got out and discovered it was a highly tuned 3.0 straight 6 and not a 6.0 v12, would you be disappointed? and if so, why?

genuinely. just because you felt as though a more inefficient "soulful" engine should be in it's place?

this may seem like i'm being pedantic or sarcastic, so i apologise. all i'm really trying to say is that to dismiss a car or concept on cylinder count alone seems a bit narrow minded.

Your comparisons are flawed, the person you responded to referenced 4 cylinders you decided to up the ante to a 6 cylinder to support your claim that more doesnt mean more.

Its all subjective tbh, but there are not many 4 cylinder yolks out there that will bring you a smile to your ears and body.

B00056718

LIGHTNING wrote: »

More cylinders does not automatically mean better. I'd rather have a Lotus Elise with a 4 pot than some V8 American barge. I drove a Smart Car with the 3 pot and I thought it was brilliant. If you go back further an Old Alfa with a 4 pot can sound great even my old Audi block sounds nice (if not a little harsh)

In general I wouldn't care the cylinder count. Responsiveness is what I would be looking for. Currently driving V6 that needs to be pushed hard to get anything out of it, and missing my 2.0 Alfa 4 pot, that was extremely sharp engine.

However, I have been in Peugeot 107 few times and every time I started it, I thought it was misfiring. Until I realised, it only had 3 cylinders. I'm sure, one can get used to it, but I felt slightly alarmed every time that 3pot fired up, thinking it wasn't running right.

Poulgorm

If these diesels prove to be a passing fad, there will be a lot of disappointed mechanics around...

But cheer up, those over-stressed, turbo charged, 3 cylinder petrol engines should provide good pickings.

Toyotafanboi

Poulgorm wrote: »

If these diesels prove to be a passing fad, there will be a lot of disappointed mechanics around...

But cheer up, those over-stressed, turbo charged, 3 cylinder petrol engines should provide good pickings.

what problems do you foresee with the petrol engines?

captainspeed

captainspeed wrote: »

I think you need to try a car with more than four cylinders, you won't be long changing your mind;). Of course there are cars with four cylinders that are fun to drive. It's just with six or eight cylinders they'd be even more fun:).

I'm intrigued as to what car you drive

You seem to detest small capacity, fwd, four cylinder engined cars.

Would an Integra Type R be more fun with a V6 or a V8? NOPE

H3llR4iser

B00056718 wrote: »

In general I wouldn't care the cylinder count. Responsiveness is what I would be looking for. Currently driving V6 that needs to be pushed hard to get anything out of it, and missing my 2.0 Alfa 4 pot, that was extremely sharp engine.

However, I have been in Peugeot 107 few times and every time I started it, I thought it was misfiring. Until I realised, it only had 3 cylinders. I'm sure, one can get used to it, but I felt slightly alarmed every time that 3pot fired up, thinking it wasn't running right.

Exactly - all the "you need a V6-V8-V12 for a car to be fun!" is based on the fact that most of the existing engines in these flavours are simply higher capacity and more powerful than most 4 cylinder ones. If somebody completely out of their mind made a 0.9L, 45hp V6 it'd be as dull as any other 0.9.

Alfa Romeo's 4-cylinders TS engines were all but dull; And certainly the turbocharged 2.0 that the Lancia Delta HFI and the Alfa 155 Q4 used was an interesting unit. And since this is Ireland and boards, and most people are fans of Japanese cars, what about the 4-in-line in the S2000? Is that bad as well, because it's "only a 4 cylinder"?

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

what problems do you foresee with the petrol engines?

Long story short, people will always oppose innovation, thinking that "the old way" is the better solution. There is little grasp of how technological advancement made it possible to easily achieve things that were unobtainable before. First it was with electronic fuel injection ("wait until the electric stuff starts to fail! Carburettors all the way"), then it was high-powered diesel, now it's smaller turbocharged engines.

JPF82

IMO a lot of failures stem from poor maintenance. Turbo cars, be they petrol or diesel turbos, should have oil changed regularly. I have had 2 turbo cars in the past 5 years. Both were 2 litre turbo petrols. Serviced reguarly irregardless of cost. Never gave me any trouble and actually they never stung me for any big problems either as a result. Servicing was generally preventative rather than to fix something that had gone wrong.

I dislike sweeping generalisations, but we Irish are not great at the maintenance side of things. I have gone to view plenty of used cars only to find missing service history or owners who think I'm being a fussy pr!ck because I ask questions about the car and any problems it may have had.

The older simpler petrol engines can probably take more abuse, but if properly maintained and used the newer cars, petrol or diesel, will mostly be ok.

That being said, I'm in bangernomics mode myself at the moment in a 15 year old Volvo. 1.8 petrol. I do a bit of minor maintenance on it myself and that is the limit of it. If I had treated my previous cars the same way they wouldn't have lasted as well as it has.

Alanstrainor

Vicxas wrote: »

So for people who commute over 100Km a day to and from work would you guys still recommend and diesel?

I have a 1.6 petrol thats costing me about 55 euro a week to get to and from work. Is it worth a diesel for all the bad-mouthing their getting?

Diesels do have their place, and long commutes on motorways is definitely one of them. Don't know what 55 a week equates to in terms of mileage. Cost to change would be the main consideration.

MuppetCheck

If you're only spending €55 a week on petrol I cant see it making financial sense to change for a diesel to be honest. Now if you want a new car that's a different story.

bmwguy

MuppetCheck wrote: »

If you're only spending €55 a week on petrol I cant see it making financial sense to change for a diesel to be honest. Now if you want a new car that's a different story.

I agree changing cars to save money hardly ever makes sense, especially if you are buying a new car. People seem to need to justify buying a new car with saving money, if you want a new car, just get a new car!! I have a 10 year old 2.5 BMW that is €1080 to tax and gets approx 26mpg. If I spent 10 grand on a replacement car, (say a 2008 diesel Golf or something)If I was to save €800 a year on tax and €20 a week on petrol it would take me 5 years to make back that money, assuming similar outlays on maintenance etc.....

If I was to buy a new car for 20 grand, 10 years would be the payback period.

I can't make the numbers work and I wouldn't have as good a car.

That said, I might change it just because I want a new car but I will not think I am saving money!

Anjobe

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Long story short, people will always oppose innovation, thinking that "the old way" is the better solution. There is little grasp of how technological advancement made it possible to easily achieve things that were unobtainable before. First it was with electronic fuel injection ("wait until the electric stuff starts to fail! Carburettors all the way"), then it was high-powered diesel, now it's smaller turbocharged engines.

But its not even a particularly new technological advance. There have been 63 hp 660cc turbo- and supercharged engines in Japanese Kei cars since 1990, without any particular problems.

Foxhole Norman

Anjobe wrote: »

But its not even a particularly new technological advance. There have been 63 hp 660cc turbo- and supercharged engines in Japanese Kei cars since 1990, without any particular problems.

Most people don't know that though.

Toyotafanboi

Foxhole Norman wrote: »

Most people don't know that though.

you'd hope that the people wading into this thread with such strong opinions on the matter would know about it though.

unkel

Anjobe wrote: »

But its not even a particularly new technological advance. There have been 63 hp 660cc turbo- and supercharged engines in Japanese Kei cars since 1990, without any particular problems.

1990, wow!

European cars had superchargers in 1885

Anjobe

unkel wrote: »

1990, wow!

European cars had superchargers in 1885

They may have had some reliability issues though!

listermint

LIGHTNING wrote: »

More cylinders does not automatically mean better. I'd rather have a Lotus Elise with a 4 pot than some V8 American barge. I drove a Smart Car with the 3 pot and I thought it was brilliant. If you go back further an Old Alfa with a 4 pot can sound great even my old Audi block sounds nice (if not a little harsh)

Never said it did

Toyotafanboi

listermint wrote: »

Never said it did

but you implied it

visual

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

but you implied it

The more cylinders the nicer the purr

Tecking Fypo

Vicxas wrote: »

So for people who commute over 100Km a day to and from work would you guys still recommend and diesel?

I have a 1.6 petrol thats costing me about 55 euro a week to get to and from work. Is it worth a diesel for all the bad-mouthing their getting?

We have a similar commute and have changed from a 1.9 tdi to a 1.8 petrol. I see the problems with diesels every day with my work. Imo they are not as economical as people would have you believe when you factor in maintenance and repair costs. It's a pleasure driving the petrol car not waiting for dpf or dmf problems every time it's driven. Btw we are getting approx 44 mpg from the petrol engine

Special Circumstances

Tecking Fypo wrote: »

We have a similar commute and have changed from a 1.9 tdi to a 1.8 petrol. I see the problems with diesels every day with my work. Imo they are not as economical as people would have you believe when you factor in maintenance and repair costs. It's a pleasure driving the petrol car not waiting for dpf or dmf problems every time it's driven. Btw we are getting approx 44 mpg from the petrol engine

Civic? That 1.8 is a very good engine.

Tecking Fypo

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Civic? That 1.8 is a very good engine.

Mazda 6

Dia1988

The problem with Petrol cars in Ireland is that they'll put tiny asthmatic engines into heavy cars, that may be capable for town driving but take it out on the motorway be prepared to stay in the slow lane and watch the mpg decrease.

I drove a new Golf last week with a 1.2 Tsi and it seemed fine accelerating in the town but once it went on the motorway it puffed and huffed. Even the sales man agreed with me, saying that, for motorway driving you should get a diesel.

_Jumper_

Dia1988 wrote: »

The problem with Petrol cars in Ireland is that they'll put tiny asthmatic engines into heavy cars, that may be capable for town driving but take it out on the motorway be prepared to stay in the slow lane and watch the mpg decrease.

I drove a new Golf last week with a 1.2 Tsi and it seemed fine accelerating in the town but once it went on the motorway it puffed and huffed. Even the sales man agreed with me, saying that, for motorway driving you should get a diesel.

I think it's just the Golfs that are like that...or at least they're the one you'll hear mentioned over all the others.

Dia1988

_Jumper_ wrote: »

I think it's just the Golfs that are like that...or at least they're the one you'll hear mentioned over all the others.

You might be right, but I really wanted to test drive the 1.0 ecoboost Focus while I was at Airside, but all their cars were sold! :mad:

I then wandered up to Nissan and saw that the New Qashquai has a 1.2 petrol, surely this couldn't be frugal or "nippy"

Foxhole Norman

Dia1988 wrote: »

I then wandered up to Nissan and saw that the New Qashquai has a 1.2 petrol, surely this couldn't be frugal or "nippy"

It is a Turbo Petrol though with I think 120hp and a good bit of torque, should be economical enough. Of course, a car that size will almost never be nippy, unless you buy the R :pac:

chinwag

Dia1988 wrote: »

I drove a new Golf last week with a 1.2 Tsi and it seemed fine accelerating in the town but once it went on the motorway it puffed and huffed.

As a matter of interest, was it the 105bhp engine?

Dia1988

chinwag wrote: »

As a matter of interest, was it the 105bhp engine?

It was the Golf Trendline BMT 1.2 TSI 5dr with 110BHP 6 speed manual in white for 22,000 Euro!

There'sno 105BHP in the 1.2TSI

Crumbs868

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Lots of people who think "diesel is the way to go" are only thinking of cheap tax and fuel economy. They wouldn't know what a dpf or dmf was even if it hit them in the face. Ask these same people in a few years and I'm sure many will be able to tell you exactly what both are.

As a matter of interest are dpf and dmf giving as much trouble on new cars? Unsurprisingly when they were new and untested 5 years ago they gave lots but surely manufacturers have improved the design, similar to electonic handbrakes not giving as much trouble.

These 2 technologies are a real buzz word from bar stool experts warning people away from diesels, the same people who are experts on everything so I'd be inclined to take their advice at face value

Special Circumstances

Crumbs868 wrote: »

As a matter of interest are dpf and dmf giving as much trouble on new cars? Unsurprisingly when they were new and untested 5 years ago they gave lots but surely manufacturers have improved the design, similar to electonic handbrakes not giving as much trouble.

These 2 technologies are a real buzz word from bar stool experts warning people away from diesels, the same people who are experts on everything so I'd be inclined to take their advice at face value

Do a lot of people just replace the clutch now on a diesel? Or would they do clutch and flywheel?