Diesel cash guzzlers: It can take 28 years for them to be cost-effective
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
Fact of the matter is, there are lots and lots and lots of people who are spening thousands of pounds more on Diesel cars because in their mind "its only £35 a year to tax and does 50MPG" overights the fact it costs £x,000 more...
These people likely read papers like the Daily Mail, so hopefully, they will be educated.
Case in point, my Gf's step mum. Took 57 plate 1.4 307 Sport petrol to garage, traded in, paid an additional £2500, and left with 57 plate 1.6 307 Diesl base model, all because "It only costs £35 a year to tax!". She only does about 5000 miles a year.
I did the maths, she only needs to keep the car for over 30 years to break even... !!!!
These people likely read papers like the Daily Mail, so hopefully, they will be educated.
Case in point, my Gf's step mum. Took 57 plate 1.4 307 Sport petrol to garage, traded in, paid an additional £2500, and left with 57 plate 1.6 307 Diesl base model, all because "It only costs £35 a year to tax!". She only does about 5000 miles a year.
I did the maths, she only needs to keep the car for over 30 years to break even... !!!!
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 1,236
No!
Im in a depressing place at the mo, where whichever car im looking at, the petrols are completely useless, it seems the fleet sector is solely concentrating on Diesels, the Accord has a terrible petrol, the Merc C180 isnt much better and the Mazda 6 has a 2.5l petrol which is so slow its ridiculous
Darn families and their requirement for 4 doors
Darn families and their requirement for 4 doors
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
My work fleet use to consist of 3 Nissan Almera Tino's 1,8. Doing about 30k plus a year each the fuel savings made by swapping to 2 Fiat Sedici's and a Suzuki SX4 1.9JTD has virtually covered the repayments of one of the vehicles. Plus the servicing so far has worked out a lot less.
.
100% happy here, wouldn't go back to petrol.
Diesels always give me the feeling of workhorses.
.
100% happy here, wouldn't go back to petrol.
Diesels always give me the feeling of workhorses.
Last edited:
That's what diesel has always been for really, hence why it was taxed more heavily to stop the general public using it and throwing all the crap into the air. It's also banned in private vehicles in some US states.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
There is defiantley an argument about the average person buying diesels to do ridiculously low miles.
I also cant see the point in these very small cars with diesel engines. I mean some of these 1.3-1.5 petrols can produce near enough 50mpg.
The only thing advantage I see of having a diesel car for average miles is it gives you flexibility in the future. It is all well and good taking a snap shot of your life now and choosing a car based on average/below average miles. But in very changing times and jobs coming and going I suppose you you could end up in a better situation if you suddenly find youself doing 30k a year.
Its the same test that the vehicles emissions rating is measured on.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
If you think a Mondeo is an "upgrade in quality*" over a Scorpio Cosworth you've either:-
1: Driven Vauxhalls all your life.
2: Never sat in/driven a Scorpio Cosworth.
*I'm not talking about it's exterior looks though - I agree they are vomit inducing
At which point you buy a more suitable car...
I could have a family and children in ten years' time. Doesn't mean I'm going to buy a people carrier now just in case
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
If you think a Mondeo is an "upgrade in quality*" over a Scorpio Cosworth you've either:-
1: Driven Vauxhalls all your life.
2: Never sat in/driven a Scorpio Cosworth.
*I'm not talking about it's exterior looks though - I agree they are vomit inducing
Quality is not the amount of kit stuffed into a car or how much dead cow there is. The Scorpio is loaded but it's also blighted by early 90's Ford build quality. A current Mondeo is without question a considerably better quality product.
Exactly.
The same guy I mentioned earlier (with the Alfa 159) didn't want an estate but got one because:
"For £20k the car is going to have to last me 10 years at least. I'll probably have kids at some point in the next 10 years so had to get an estate."
What a fantastic logic to use when buying a car
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,115
Fox
Below is the Part 1 and Part 2 time / speed series testing graphs for the Urban / Extra Urban cycles as per conformity to the EU Directive 80/1268/EEC (as last amended by 2004/3/EC)
As you will clearly see the majority of the Part 2 cycle is spent at sub UK Motorway Speeds. The first peak (sustained for 30s) to 101km/h (62.8mph) is 300s into the part 2 test and the acceleration period from 70km/h (43.5mph) to 101km/h begins at 240s.
Thus well over half the Part 2 test is well below typical UK motorway speeds. It hits 80km/h (50mph) at 250s into the test. Only ¼ of the whole test is above 80km/h.
The vehicle only reaches 122km/h (75.8mph) at 325s into the test and sustains this for 10s.
Therefore I will stand by the fact that extra urban fuel testing figures will not be reflective of real world driving, especially where diesels tend to be more efficient at motorway speeds over their petrol counterparts.
Below is the Part 1 and Part 2 time / speed series testing graphs for the Urban / Extra Urban cycles as per conformity to the EU Directive 80/1268/EEC (as last amended by 2004/3/EC)
As you will clearly see the majority of the Part 2 cycle is spent at sub UK Motorway Speeds. The first peak (sustained for 30s) to 101km/h (62.8mph) is 300s into the part 2 test and the acceleration period from 70km/h (43.5mph) to 101km/h begins at 240s.
Thus well over half the Part 2 test is well below typical UK motorway speeds. It hits 80km/h (50mph) at 250s into the test. Only ¼ of the whole test is above 80km/h.
The vehicle only reaches 122km/h (75.8mph) at 325s into the test and sustains this for 10s.
Therefore I will stand by the fact that extra urban fuel testing figures will not be reflective of real world driving, especially where diesels tend to be more efficient at motorway speeds over their petrol counterparts.
The differential will remain largely the same, though, which is the point you completely fail to grasp. Yes, the diesel is more efficient at Motorway speeds but guess what, the figures take this into account. Whilst neither the 530i nor the 530d I drive conform exactly to their EU fuel economy figures, the differential between the published figures and the actual figures I get is largely similar for each type of driving.
To be honest most cars are suprisingly efficient at Motorway speeds, its the least stressful form of driving there is pretty much.
To be honest most cars are suprisingly efficient at Motorway speeds, its the least stressful form of driving there is pretty much.
how?
![[huzeeee]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/3.png){kind=avatar}
A diesel can do lets say on average 50% more mpg than the petrol and most now(not all) are very decent to drive. To me that shows a huge increase in technology and a far better way of using a finite rescource-fuel. Yes it may be a false economy now, but i do believe it is the way forward. We all know newer technology costs more, when it starts to fall in price, as all new technology does, it will be far more cost effective, in our pockets and to the environment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 10,648
[huzeeee];13380624 said:
It's hardly a new technology.
Working on a 30k per year basis and picking similar performance petrol vs diesel it doesn't work out that much cheaper.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=199262.0 lx mondeo stated mpg is 36, the http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=262262.0 tdci 1302.0 tdci 130(same performance as the petrol) mpg is 48 if its euro 4. A saving on fuel of £494.81 and a £5 cheaper on tax(F vs D) so all in all a saving of £500 over a 30k year. The extra price paid + higher service costs should make that seem like nothing i would think.
It drops to about a £325 saving at 20k miles and a really small amount of £82 PER YEAR doing 5k per year.
(Obviously the tax saving will go up soon to the new rates)
Last edited: