Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,805
- Location
- Falling...
For the OP doing only 600 miles a month I don't think a diesel really makes much sense.
Honda Accord 2.2 CTDI
- Thread starter Nikumba
- Start date
OP, some quick sums for you:
Honda 2.0 i-VTEC - 38mpg (claimed)
Honda 2.2 i-CTDI - 51mpg (claimed)
You do 9,600 miles a year (let's round up and say 10,000):
For the Diesel:
10000/51 = 196 gallons
196 x 4.54 = 890 litres of fuel
890 x 1.34 (avg. UK diesel price) = £1192
For the Petrol:
10000/38 = 263 gallons
263 x 4.54 = 1194 litres
1194 x 1.29 (avg. UK petrol price) = £1541
This means that the petrol will cost £349 a year extra to run, or £29.10 a month. For this £29.10 a month, you get patented Honda reliabilty, a car that doesn't sound like a tractor, a quicker car and the car will probably be cheaper to buy to begin with.
Honda 2.0 i-VTEC - 38mpg (claimed)
Honda 2.2 i-CTDI - 51mpg (claimed)
You do 9,600 miles a year (let's round up and say 10,000):
For the Diesel:
10000/51 = 196 gallons
196 x 4.54 = 890 litres of fuel
890 x 1.34 (avg. UK diesel price) = £1192
For the Petrol:
10000/38 = 263 gallons
263 x 4.54 = 1194 litres
1194 x 1.29 (avg. UK petrol price) = £1541
This means that the petrol will cost £349 a year extra to run, or £29.10 a month. For this £29.10 a month, you get patented Honda reliabilty, a car that doesn't sound like a tractor, a quicker car and the car will probably be cheaper to buy to begin with.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,632
- Location
- Leicester
TBH I would have expected much better than that, my 1.8 VTEC Petrol Civic has managed 39mpg over 19k miles, and thats a good mix of miles from A-road, city, motorway but mainly commuting around town. On a motorway run to london and back at 70mph I get 45mpg no problem.
Hawker
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,805
- Location
- Falling...
Me too... maybe I should reset the trip computer.
You also have to bear in mind I was driving it whilst breaking it in and they aren't that economical initially - well mine certainly wasn't but I did start off driving it harder than I do now.
You also have to bear in mind I was driving it whilst breaking it in and they aren't that economical initially - well mine certainly wasn't but I did start off driving it harder than I do now.
Taking your sums and replacing them with my current car work out at £1962/yr on fuel.
Ignoring the cost of purchasing the diesel car as it sounding like a tractor does not bother me I would be saving £770 a year on fuel with diesel or £420 on unleaded.
I know Fox is of the opinion that unless your doing lots of miles no point getting a diesel, but from those sums, with my low mileage, why should I not get a diesel is the question.
Kimbie
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Because the chance of it going wrong in spectacular fashion resulting in a £1000 bill are high.
That is a very generalised statement with cars in general.
I am not trying to be picky but saying it failing spectacularly is that on this car, cars in general?
Without
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
i-cdti engine has more expensive components than the simple petrol engine, it would only take one of them to brake to wipe out any savings on fuel you've had over a two year period.
I turned to the diesal side 6 months ago and so far (touch wood) not an issue. Its only a 04 mondeo tdci but its big, comfy and returns 50mpg on the motorways so it will do for now. You know its a diesal but it doesnt do that horrid gear stick wobble that most smokers do.
All you hear on this forum is horror storys of 4 figure repairs for them. Im just hoping I dont get lumbered with one anytime soon but right now its saving me packet over the ST170 it replaced.
Sure it was last year that diesals overtook petrol cars in the sales department. They cant all be that unreliable can they?
All you hear on this forum is horror storys of 4 figure repairs for them. Im just hoping I dont get lumbered with one anytime soon but right now its saving me packet over the ST170 it replaced.
Sure it was last year that diesals overtook petrol cars in the sales department. They cant all be that unreliable can they?
Fine, you obviously seem to know more about cars than us, so why bother asking. Get the diesel and save that £29 a month. Just don't cry when you have to spend £1000+ to replace your injectors/fuel pump/turbocharger.
I just can't believe someone would bother going through all the potential hassle of a diesel when they could have a nice petrol engine that will be:
- More reliable.
- Much cheaper to fix.
- Quieter.
- More powerful.
- Sound nicer.
- Cleaner.
And all of this for a whopping £29 extra per month. Not including the fact you'll have to spend £1000-£2000 more buying the diesel.
Nice logic (Y)
When people say this, are they really trying say that there engine is a noisy, clattery, unrefined mess?
Have you worked out how much you've saved? Or is it a case of "I do 50mpg now so i simply MUST be saving money right?!?!" like most people seem to do.
Yep, think so. But i think that's partly down to the salesmen. When i was looking at BMW's with my mum a few weeks ago, the salesman INSISTED that "diesel is definitely the future and the way to go" even after i told him that my mum did only about 8-10000 miles a year. He then went on about how diesels are just as powerful and have so much better fuel consumption than petrols. With a quiet smugness, i asked him how much difference there was between the 330d and the 330i to which he replied "Umm....let me check....ah, um 9mpg!". Then i asked how much more expensive the 330d was than the 330i and i think the ones we were looking at were around £2000 extra. He didn't say a word about diesel from then on which was quiet nice!
Ignoring your arrogance that is the sort of thing I was after, why you didnt say that first time round is anyones guess.
I think the problem people might be having with the switch you're suggesting is not that diesel is a bad thing, it's just that a 2.2 honda unit isn't showing off the best in diesel because it likes a bit of a drink compared to the competition - the main for doing the switch. That aside, I have had 1 major repair in the last 300,000 miles of diesels in my house over 5 years which was a blown turbo on a PD130. Brought the parts direct from the internet and got it fixed for under a grand.
I'd suggest it's probably worth trying it against the VW 1.9/2.0 PD competitors (not sure which year brought in the DPF -might want to avoid these ones but I'd check the Octavia,A4, A3, Leon considering your current car) and the Ford TDCi units to see what you like in each of them if you do still want to go down the path. I do agree with the others in general that doing 800 a month is not really what I'd consider inside switching range but I can see why you'd do it considering change of job etc... you'd be taking a risk that it wouldn't pay off which is fine as long as you consider it an upgrade in other ways such as less time at the pumps, maybe a better cabin etc...
I'd suggest it's probably worth trying it against the VW 1.9/2.0 PD competitors (not sure which year brought in the DPF -might want to avoid these ones but I'd check the Octavia,A4, A3, Leon considering your current car) and the Ford TDCi units to see what you like in each of them if you do still want to go down the path. I do agree with the others in general that doing 800 a month is not really what I'd consider inside switching range but I can see why you'd do it considering change of job etc... you'd be taking a risk that it wouldn't pay off which is fine as long as you consider it an upgrade in other ways such as less time at the pumps, maybe a better cabin etc...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 91,805
- Location
- Falling...
Yup I think you're right. Good post. 
The only advantage of the 2.2 as a company car is you get 15p per mile. If I do over 42mpg I actually make money on my mileage! Not much though as I use it for personal use - so it doesn't really make much of a difference.
The only advantage of the 2.2 as a company car is you get 15p per mile. If I do over 42mpg I actually make money on my mileage! Not much though as I use it for personal use - so it doesn't really make much of a difference.
If you've got a car at the moment which you're happy with and isn't going throw up £££s of bills in the near future, the smart choice would be to spend £1.5k or so on a LPG conversion. Otherwise, you'll get pennies for your car, pay the premium on a cark in the used market and eventually have to get with turbo/injector replacement (unless you sell that car before 100k-150k miles).
Smart option = LPG.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I've also been looking at the Accord 2.2 CDTi and the concensus I've found over the interest was that they were generally very reliable for a new diesel engine. Yes there were some common problems such as the early models drinking oil and if you didn't check the oil often enough you'd find the oil pressure light come on and it'd be too late as the engine damage was already done.
For 10k miles per year just get the petrol version. Nearly as economical and costs much less for a much better specification. If I wasn't doing nearly 20k miles per year I'd change over to a petrol but *touch wood* my diesel is doing just fine and the engine has not chucked a single bill at me asides from servicing, and that's from a Vauxhall 2l DTi.
For 10k miles per year just get the petrol version. Nearly as economical and costs much less for a much better specification. If I wasn't doing nearly 20k miles per year I'd change over to a petrol but *touch wood* my diesel is doing just fine and the engine has not chucked a single bill at me asides from servicing, and that's from a Vauxhall 2l DTi.
[TW]Fox;18518955 said:
I say let him worry about the math. If he really wants a car with better fuel economy and reckons he can save £800 pa with diesel mpg over petrol and wants to future proof against increased commuting, distance etc, then so be it.
With LPG, he'll get the mpg saving but without the headaches and cost of turbos, injectors, DMF etc. Hence my suggestion that its the smarter choice.
my oldman has a 2007 CTDI EX Accord, lovely motor with a nice spec.
He recently did a trip to london and back from bristol and managed 54mpg
but mixed driving it's about 45mpg
looking at the accord forum I don't see any of them mentioning mid 30's, more like low to mid 40's.
He recently did a trip to london and back from bristol and managed 54mpg
but mixed driving it's about 45mpg
looking at the accord forum I don't see any of them mentioning mid 30's, more like low to mid 40's.
How dare you bring common sense and fact into this thread! Surely you know this is a thread where people will pick holes in everyones' argument and not actually answer the Op's query and advise he buy something else! It's what usually happens on an ocUK motoring thread.
Having said that, I agree with the point that a diesel doesn't actually make that much sense in his situation.
