The diesel vs petrol economy debate

PMKeates · 12 Jul 2010 at 12:10

Company car tax is such a sad demonstration of government regulation and taxation controlling the entire cycle of the market. What and when cars are sold is not determined by their merit to the individual, but by their merit to the government's "plan".

Vertigo · 12 Jul 2010 at 17:26

Jonnycoupe said:
Not sure they would have lost a 'shedload of cash' when the pre 2007 rate was flat at £500.

Not sure I follow you, which rate was "flat at £500"?

PMKeates said:
Company car tax is such a sad demonstration of government regulation and taxation controlling the entire cycle of the market. What and when cars are sold is not determined on their merit to the individual, but on their merit to the government's "plan".

I detest the current system simply because, like road tax, it's based on an emissions-per-mile figure and pays no regard to how many miles you actually do. That said, I'm still better off than under the previous mileage-only system, where I "struggled" to reach the 2500 mile threshold for 25% each year. Neither system is perfect and we could probably do with a combination of the two but at least the old system taxed those doing fewer miles more heavily, as it was intended to penalise those whose car was a "perk" and not those for whom it was primarily a business tool. This was far fairer that the emissions based system we have now. I imagine, when the switch came in, there were quite a few sales reps doing over 18k miles in petrol powered cars chucking out tons of CO2 who suddenly found their tax bill skyrocket but who were "trapped" due to punitive lease contract "hand back" clauses.

Lum · 12 Jul 2010 at 18:13

Jonnycoupe said:
Not sure they would have lost a 'shedload of cash' when the pre 2007 rate was flat at £500.

That was only for vans. They got rid of that in 2007 because pickups also classed as vans so people were getting the likes of dual-cab Mitsibushi Warriors as company "cars" and fitting a lid to the flatbed resulting in what is effectively an ugly gas-guzzling 4 door saloon with very cheap company car tax.

Ian_Eb · 12 Jul 2010 at 20:48

Vertigo1 said:
What's interesting is that they explained the 3% surcharge for diesels as being due to the high particulate emissions, yet whilst most new diesels now have particulate filters, there's no sign of this surcharge being reduced or removed for vehicles so equipped.

Frankly I doubt the surchage was ever intended to cover particulates but rather because, at the time it was introduced, diesel CO2 emissions were so low compared to petrols that everyone would have switched to a diesel and they'd have lost a shedload of cash

They did remove the 3% penalty for Cat IV Diesels for a very short time. When the new rules came in, CAT IV vehicles didn't pay the 3%. It was in place until 01/01/2006 when they put the 3% penalty back onto all Diesel fuelled vehicles.

Gerard · 12 Jul 2010 at 21:51

Conscript said:
Is it really worth it, considering that the petrol is quicker and more powerful, will be less noisy,

Surely noise though is subjective to the make of engine? I know that idle they are easy to pick out (dugadugaduga) but driving along the noise isn't much above a petrol (again engine\manufacturer dependant).

I mean you'd be hard pressed to tell this is a diesel:

[TW]Fox · 12 Jul 2010 at 21:56

Gerard said:
I mean you'd be hard pressed to tell this is a diesel:

Because it's a 530d, one of the very best diesel engines in the world and lots better than most average diesel engines.

Gerard · 12 Jul 2010 at 21:58

[TW]Fox;16932093 said:
Because it's a 530d, one of the very best diesel engines in the world and lots better than most average diesel engines.

Indeed, so its really down to make of engine and obviously amount of soundproofing in the car. I find the mk3 mondeo to be pretty decent in that respect as well. The way people talk about diesels its like you have to go into a car expecting to know sign language to communicate to the driver over the racket of the engine. :confused:

[Duff]Chef · 12 Jul 2010 at 22:38

MY10 A3 2.0 TDI. I do 400mile a week commute, average 48mpg all A roads with 20mins of city traffic. Went to Brum a week ago, averaged 54 mpg with cruise on 80.

Old Mini GP, averaged 25mpg on 400mile commute, same Brum trip, 33mpg. Um about 12 when giving it some beans, 5mpg around brands

..

TT240, 29mpg on 400 mile commute, Brum trip 33mpg. 13 around brands..

So Diesel is considerably more economical, tax is lower etc but no where near as much fun. Although, having more cash makes the missus happy.

mrgubby · 12 Jul 2010 at 22:53

Doing typical commute / family taxi duties.

Vectra 1.8, 1997 plate - petrol - 39mpg
Vectra 1.9 CDTi 150, 2007 plate - diesel - 51mpg

I hate diesel but so far my wallet loves it

bad_ass_neil · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:21

iaind said:
I think you have a faulty trip computer

nope
when i work out the full tank from what the trip displays it was bang on trip (which i was actually surprised at, i didnt thing they was that precise) said 60mpg for the tank and i working the amount out with fuel and miles used worked out at 59.6mpg or something.

borich_planner · 12 Jul 2010 at 23:41

Got 550 out of my last tank to scotland from kent, Driving 80-85 all the way and 4 people up in the car. 118d

Vertigo · 13 Jul 2010 at 00:15

Ian_Eb said:
They did remove the 3% penalty for Cat IV Diesels for a very short time. When the new rules came in, CAT IV vehicles didn't pay the 3%. It was in place until 01/01/2006 when they put the 3% penalty back onto all Diesel fuelled vehicles.

You're right! I'd forgotten about that.

fullspizz · 13 Jul 2010 at 00:59

2004 A4 1.8T - 200 mile trip to Swansea got me an average of 33mpg (speeds of 75-80mph cruise on most of the time)
2003 2.0TDCI Mondeo on the same trip, similar speeds, etc I get average of 49mpg.

Obviously the Audi was a much better car if you wanted to go for a thrash, but for motorway mile munching the Mondy is mustard.
It has also saved me approx £40 a month in fuel, of which that all goes into my GSXR750

iaind · 13 Jul 2010 at 07:50

bad_ass_neil said:
nope
when i work out the full tank from what the trip displays it was bang on trip (which i was actually surprised at, i didnt thing they was that precise) said 60mpg for the tank and i working the amount out with fuel and miles used worked out at 59.6mpg or something.

So you rounded up from 59.6 to 70 :confused:

A golf 1.9 will just touch mid to high 50s on an econocruise. It will not get anywhere close to the 70 you claimed

mast3r · 13 Jul 2010 at 09:55

70+MPG from a Golf 1.9TDi

Bladdddy Hell!
Is that the bluemotion?

Demon · 13 Jul 2010 at 10:22

In my experience, from lots of motorway miles in lots of hire cars, if I drive sensibly, the diesel is about 20% better on fuel, driven very hard, more like 30-50% better on fuel..

Pulsar_GTI · 13 Jul 2010 at 12:41

Costs me £60 a week in the Impreza or around £20 in the Vectra (05) - Cant help putting my foot down in the impreza tho.

It also takes me longer to get to work in the Impreza believe it or not ... as i like to warm it up, take it easy for the 1st 10mins or so... but in the Vectra i just get in and go