Thats 1200 difference new presumably? So taking into account depreciation and the total cost of running a car being purchase price + running costs - sale price, the derv actually works out cheaper regardless of mileage? Thought as much...
diesel vs petrol power
- Thread starter stinka
- Start date
Thats 1200 difference new presumably? So taking into account depreciation and the total cost of running a car being purchase price + running costs - sale price, the derv actually works out cheaper regardless of mileage? Thought as much...
£1200 new yes.
The price differential will vary across manufacturer and model ranges.
In say the Accord which has a £23k price bracket the difference is larger than £1200 - so that will swing towards the Petrol unless you're doing mega mileage. Then again the residual value could swing it back to the Derv.
What essentially I'm saying is you need to look at the price differential on a per car and per mileage basis.
to be fair a lot of this nonsense comes from the mouth of a few certain posters, and the rest of the bandwagon read this as fact and jump on despite the fact they have no experience of their own of the technology/vehicle in question. the cycle goes on and before long we find very narrow minded responses regarding subjects such as this, bless 'em
I wonder if thats something to do with Honda being relatively new to the oil burning game.
Certainly at cars in my price range (generally 7~8k used mid/low range marques), the price difference between similar models is precisely nil. The only difference is the diesels tend to have a slightly higher mileage, but even then its not a huge difference.
to be fair a lot of this nonsense comes from the mouth of a few certain posters, and the rest of the bandwagon read this as fact and jump on despite the fact they have no experience of their own of the technology/vehicle in question. the cycle goes on and before long we find very narrow minded responses regarding subjects such as this, bless 'em
How very true. I've been saying for ages that in some situations the derv is worth it, some situations its not...depends on a lot of factors - driving style, requirements, the car in question, mileage and the way you budget for a car. The favourite phrase around here seems to be "no diesel unless moon mileage" which is utter nonsense, theres a lot more to it than that..
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,589
- Location
- England
Is this still going lol.
The Fabia vRS in standard form is not what i'd call quick in all honesty.
Nippy yes. Not many people realise these do not come out of the factory with 130bhp.
My friends was dyno'd at 144bhp and my Saxo VTR at the time had no problems keeping up until about 90mph.
Up hill is where it gave me slapping. The torque happily pulled it up the hill where as my Saxo was pants.
Now I have a VTS and off the blocks I pull 2 car lengths ahead but at about 80-90mph he pulls in on me and ends up a car length ahead gradually creeping away as the speed increases. The vRS has been remapped to 177bhp though.
The VTS can do it around the corners though, something Skoda forgot about.
I should really put an exhaust,decat,manifold and air filter on the VTS but i'm thinking about swapping it for a VAG derv.
One day.
You have got to be a serious diesel fan boy to drop a HDi in a 205. There are plenty of other suitable diesels, Xsara and 306 spring to mind.
The 306 HDi 3 dr has the GTi's suspension. I regret not buying one of these at times.
The Fabia vRS in standard form is not what i'd call quick in all honesty.
Nippy yes. Not many people realise these do not come out of the factory with 130bhp.
My friends was dyno'd at 144bhp and my Saxo VTR at the time had no problems keeping up until about 90mph.
Up hill is where it gave me slapping. The torque happily pulled it up the hill where as my Saxo was pants.
Now I have a VTS and off the blocks I pull 2 car lengths ahead but at about 80-90mph he pulls in on me and ends up a car length ahead gradually creeping away as the speed increases. The vRS has been remapped to 177bhp though.
The VTS can do it around the corners though, something Skoda forgot about.
I should really put an exhaust,decat,manifold and air filter on the VTS but i'm thinking about swapping it for a VAG derv.
One day.
You have got to be a serious diesel fan boy to drop a HDi in a 205. There are plenty of other suitable diesels, Xsara and 306 spring to mind.
The 306 HDi 3 dr has the GTi's suspension. I regret not buying one of these at times.
Last edited:
Well diesel comes into its own when you do massive amounts of milege. When you do ten miles a day there is much difference, you usually get some people who say OMG look how much I'm saving in tax and fuel when they save about £200 all year and probably lose some of those savings in servicing costs. If I done 20k a year I'd be totally stupid not to buy a diesel because the savings far outweigh any extra costs.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,257
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,589
- Location
- England
It depends on the route to work also I think.
I'm doing about 17,000 a year at the moment, too much for a little Paxo in my view but the roads to work are quite heavy going in a petrol. Steep springs to mind.
I'm constantly dropping down.
Diesels are easy to live with if you get a quick one. Very lazy car's imo.
Put your foot down and they usually just progress nicely where as in a petrol you'd have to drop down. Hence not as much driver involvement.
lol, and you think its different ibn any dealership
It most certainly is not like that in the majority of dealerships.
At the end of my 12 years in Renault I was sevice manager, and if I caught even the slightest hint of any of our technicians even driving fast in a customers car, let alone racing collegues, then they would be out on their ear faster than they could blink.
I still have many friends in many different dealerships around the country and they are all the same.
Customers cars are treated well, that is how you get a good reputaion and how you get good customer retention. If they find out you race their cars then you will find they tend not to come back, that is not a good way to run a business.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 3,589
- Location
- England
Heard a story of a young lad taking a customers RS4 out for a "spin" and wrapping it around a street lamp.
Reckon he got the sack??
Reckon he got the sack??
Whoops, I didnt buy a diesel
No, you bought something far far worse. To avoid owning a diesel by the looks of it
100mpg is not to be sniffed at I guess 
As far the 'don't need to change gears to overtake and go up hills' if I wanted an automatic, I'd buy one
Last edited:
This thread is so making me laugh.
I am in the lucky position of having driven several hundred thousand miles in tens if not hundreds of different cars.
Yes modern diesels are getting quite good at what they do, compared to diesel engines of ten, fifteen years ago they are light years ahead in every area. I have driven petrol cars I like and petrol cars I detest, and the same goes for diesels.
One thing that does emerge from all my experiences though, is that you have to modify a diesel engined car to make it do anything at all. A standard NA diesel engine is just pants, there is no getting away from it. A standard NA petrol car can be very engaging and fun, you do not HAVE to bolt a turbo to a petrol car to get a usable engine, and that to me says it all about diesel engines.
If we take it to the extreme and look at performance diesels, have a look at the Le Mans winning Audi R10 for instance. The only way that Audi could make a competitive diesel engined car was to get the rules changed to let the diesels enjoy a 50-percent larger displacement limit, a 52-percent larger intake restrictor, and an absolute boost pressure limit nearly twice as high.
Additionally, the diesels are allowed variable nozzle turbines in their turbochargers, it is also rumored that Audi successfully lobbied to raise the minimum weight to accommodate the R10's massive (at 200kg nearly 50% heavier than an equivilent petrol engine) powerplant. If these rule changes had not been implemented, there is no way on earth the diesel would out perform the petrol engined cars.
I am in the lucky position of having driven several hundred thousand miles in tens if not hundreds of different cars.
Yes modern diesels are getting quite good at what they do, compared to diesel engines of ten, fifteen years ago they are light years ahead in every area. I have driven petrol cars I like and petrol cars I detest, and the same goes for diesels.
One thing that does emerge from all my experiences though, is that you have to modify a diesel engined car to make it do anything at all. A standard NA diesel engine is just pants, there is no getting away from it. A standard NA petrol car can be very engaging and fun, you do not HAVE to bolt a turbo to a petrol car to get a usable engine, and that to me says it all about diesel engines.
If we take it to the extreme and look at performance diesels, have a look at the Le Mans winning Audi R10 for instance. The only way that Audi could make a competitive diesel engined car was to get the rules changed to let the diesels enjoy a 50-percent larger displacement limit, a 52-percent larger intake restrictor, and an absolute boost pressure limit nearly twice as high.
Additionally, the diesels are allowed variable nozzle turbines in their turbochargers, it is also rumored that Audi successfully lobbied to raise the minimum weight to accommodate the R10's massive (at 200kg nearly 50% heavier than an equivilent petrol engine) powerplant. If these rule changes had not been implemented, there is no way on earth the diesel would out perform the petrol engined cars.
The relevance is that in the whole petrol versus diesel debate what most people seem to be missing, is this.
In my opinion there has to be a major flaw in the basic design of an engine, whatever type of engine that is, if the engine CANNOT be usable in lots of different variations, guises, and vehicle uses, if, out of the box without bolting gadgets to the side of it, thet engine is next to useless, which IMO covers pretty much every diesel engine out there.
When you can take a bog standard factory built NA diesel and it outperforms a similar capacity NA petrol engine, then I will agree they have their uses, untill then forget it.
A diesel is nothing without a turbo, and that makes it basically a flawed design in my book. Untill diesel can compete on a level playing field, then I still believe thet should be classed as useless.
As I say just my opinion, and I am sure plenty will disagree.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
99.9% of diesel cars are turbodiesels so I really do not see how this is relevant?