Diesel cash guzzlers: It can take 28 years for them to be cost-effective

Yep different governments impose different tax levels, knew that.

Could be hazy memory but I think I remember diesel had always been a good bit cheaper in the past when compared to petrol. Seems like a lot has changed, or i'm imagining things which has been known to happen :)
 
There are real issues with supply and demand in recent times, refining is not ideally geared for the current massive demand for diesel and the traditionally low levels of demand we are putting in for petrol.

Things will likely change long term as people start to shift towards petrols again. Its only a matter of time before the differential and articles like this get the message across.
 
Hey Every1, guess what. Fox is right, it must be truez...... ;)

But you know what? I couldn't give a toss or even a flying monkies if diesel cost a trillion billion pounds more or eleventy hundred years to break even.

I bought a diesel for some of the following reasons:

1) I prefer the way it drives
2) I like to cover circa 700 miles without visiting a pump
3) I don't pay for fuel
4) I don't pay any running costs outside of agreement.

Does that make me an uneducated newb??

No. I would happily of bought a petrol, I just couldn't find one, although this won't be the case for most people.
 
Lucero said:
Hey Every1, guess what. Fox is right, it must be truez...... ;)

But you know what? I couldn't give a toss or even a flying monkies if diesel cost a trillion billion pounds more or eleventy hundred years to break even.

I bought a diesel for some of the following reasons:

1) I prefer the way it drives
2) I like to cover circa 700 miles without visiting a pump
3) I don't pay for fuel
4) I don't pay any running costs outside of agreement.

Does that make me an uneducated newb??

No. I would happily of bought a petrol, I just couldn't find one, although this won't be the case for most people.
Click to expand...

You are not who the post is about, i doubt anyone could knock your reasoning (other than prefer the way it drives, but thats subjective obviously :)). This article is aimed at mr and mrs idiot who walk to work yet have a 3-series diesel on the drive for covering 3000 miles per year.
 
Lucero said:
Hey Every1, guess what. Fox is right, it must be truez...... ;)

But you know what? I couldn't give a toss or even a flying monkies if diesel cost a trillion billion pounds more or eleventy hundred years to break even.

I bought a diesel for some of the following reasons:

1) I prefer the way it drives
2) I like to cover circa 700 miles without visiting a pump
3) I don't pay for fuel
4) I don't pay any running costs outside of agreement.

Does that make me an uneducated newb??

No. I would happily of bought a petrol, I just couldn't find one, although this won't be the case for most people.
Click to expand...

That's fine if you prefer the characteristics of a Diesel engine, perfectly fine. Not what the topic's about though is it...
 
I'm with the people who say that unless you take specific examples of depreciation/servicing/RFL into account as well, just posting fuel savings is misleading, if 'money' is all that matters in the comparisons..
 
[TW]Fox;13367104 said:
It's about the man in the street and the man in the street buys a diesel becuase of 'MPGS'.
Click to expand...

Does it matter why they want the diesel? the bottom line is, it's either better or worse on a purely financial basis, which is dependant on more then just MPG..
 
Demon said:
Does it matter why they want the diesel?
Click to expand...

You just dont get discussion forums do you :confused:

Anyway, I thought I'd do some maths for you and work out whether, over 3 years, the saving of a petrol model is cancelled out by the extra residuals. I'm going to assume that, after 3 years and 36,000 miles, you trade in the car. We'll pick one from the table the Mail printed, we'll go with BMW because obviously I'm a rabid fanboy.

So, you've spent an extra £2690 on your 318d ES over the 318i ES.

Tradein value @ 36,000 miles for a 2006/06:

318d ES: £10250
318i ES: £9270

The diesel is worth £980 more. It cost £2690 more in the first place. From this example it is therefore accurate to say the diesel not only costs MORE TO BUY but it also DEPRECIATES MORE HEAVILY.
 
You know you want to go into the detail for actual numbers involved over the total ownership experience, taking 86.9 for petrol and 100.9 for diesel as the Tesco is currently signed outside this office window. We can also assume increased service costs for the diesel.
 
[TW]Fox;13366668 said:
It's based on a press release issued by Parkers who appear to exist purely to comment on used car prices so I guess its up to you who you feel is more credible.

But, lets assume for one minute its true - diesels are worth more at resale. This will be because of higher demand for diesel cars, and this is because the public is uneducated. They assume diesel is cheaper and buy it regardless without doing any of the maths. This increases demand for diesel cars, which compounds the problem. I've done it - my first car was a diesel because hey, its diesel, it will be cheaper obviously?! Like I can afford to run a petrol car, so I bought a diesel without even looking at the petrol cars. Great. Saved me nothing at all.

If I decide to get an LCI 530i M Sport next I am going to have a proper mission to actually find one because people just dont buy them, even though they are faster the 530d, cleaner than the 530d, smoother than the 530d, more reliable than the 530d, cheaper on company car tax than a 530d and are only 6mpg less efficient on the combined cycle than a 530d.

I wonder how many 530d drivers even know the 530i is still available, let alone actually looked at it?

It just seems that in this country you have to have a diesel, cos, its like, cheaper. Even though its not..

Buying a diesel to save money has become a bit like buying a Prius to save the environment. And, like the Prius owners tell people they did it to save the world, people driving diesel Astras genuinelly try and convince themselves it wasn't a compromise and that their noisy, clattery hire cars really are awesome :/
Click to expand...

I just pick an 06 TDCI Titanium and the same car as a 2.0 petrol. Both have servicing costs pretty much the same with the same 12k intervals. The diesel is 1k dearer at new and 1k dearer when sold now. That's from Parkers. Power is 130bhp on both so I assume performance is similar so the only difference is consumption.

My bias is based of course on my own car, ie an ST TDCI.. I don't care about injectors as it will go before warranty runs out, so price from new to 3 year old price is what i'm interested in.

That's Parkers figures. And no I didn't search loads of cars for that example to prove a point, i'm sure there are polar opposites.. i'm just not seeing it in the cars I look at on autotrader.
 
[TW]Fox;13367163 said:
You just dont get discussion forums do you :confused:
Click to expand...
I do, hence why I'm discussing ;)


Anyway, I thought I'd do some maths for you and work out whether, over 3 years, the saving of a petrol model is cancelled out by the extra residuals. I'm going to assume that, after 3 years and 36,000 miles, you trade in the car. We'll pick one from the table the Mail printed, we'll go with BMW because obviously I'm a rabid fanboy.

So, you've spent an extra £2690 on your 318d ES over the 318i ES.

Tradein value @ 36,000 miles for a 2006/06:

318d ES: £10250
318i ES: £9270

The diesel is worth £980 more. It cost £2690 more in the first place. From this example it is therefore accurate to say the diesel not only costs MORE TO BUY but it also DEPRECIATES MORE HEAVILY.
Click to expand...

The bottom line, surely is that the £980 should be taken away from the £2690, which means you only need to save £1710 in fuel (Lets ignore servicing/rfl for a moment) to break even?

That's all I'm saying... The OP article seems to ignore this 'sizeable' figure which I for one think needs to be included (as do other things..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom