Diesels Vs Petrol DEBATE

merlin · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:32

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
Even if it meant an extra £3000 a year company car tax?

yes.

But then you're never going to find a flat playing field here Fox - cos different people have different incomes and different spending priorities. Some will spend a fortune on a car or co car tax on a car and not think twice about it.

Others are more frugal.

Horses for courses, sdk is obviously just one that doesnt care much for saving a few quid by taking a diesel and im willing to most people would share this view.

In fact - what exactly are we arguing about here - i've lost the point of it all.

:rolleyes:

wassap · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:36

Yep bring the thread back on track guys it seems to be turning into cheapskate vs non cheapskate

merlin · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:38

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
You said the best/high spec models were Petrol. I countered this by saying the highest specification models are also available in diesel. I didnt say which was best. From a performance point of view, its clear the E500 is best. It has a 5.0 V8, of course its going to be faster. But from a financial point of view - ie the real world, its a different story.

So don't me until you are entirely sure what I wrote.

Erm - no you didnt at all Fox, you asked me for a source and then you went on to give some diesel model details like you were saying there you go - point proved.

U read ur post.

[TW]Fox · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:38

I find it quite amusing how petrol owners seem to have a hatred of diesels - how they are smelly, how they are slow, how the owners are 'cheapskates', yet diesel owners largely have no opinion on petrol drivers and tend to accept petrol has its place..

flat-6 · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:41

Right Fox needs some help here so here come tha double team!

Point #1:
Fleets like diesel because Gordon Brown knows they are better for the environment. Why else would it be cheaper to run a diesel on a fleet in terms of the tax levied?

Point #2:
In real world driving conditions (i.e. not back road hooning), comparing like for like (however you want, displacement, cost yadda yadda) diesels are faster. Nearly all beat their petrol counterparts in in-gear acceleration tests.

Point #3:
Diesels are not noisy any more. Fox's S-Class figure tells you all you need to know. If they were noisy CEOs and the like wouldn't be being chauffered around in them.

Point #4: Whoever was moaning about fleets being penny pinchers and that was why diesel sales are on the up is simply not the case. In 2002 Citroen shifted shedloads of cars to the general public, most of them being diesel, because when spending their own money, they care about running costs.

But then, if you're young and can afford it, drive a fast car that gets you chicks - you won't be able to do it forever

[TW]Fox · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:45

Originally posted by merlin
Erm - no you didnt at all Fox, you asked me for a source and then you went on to give some diesel model details like you were saying there you go - point proved.

U read ur post.

You said all the high spec cars were Petrol. I disagreed and provided examples of cars which were just as high a specification, but diesel powered. Nowhere did I say which of the two was 'better', just that they were of equal trim levels..

gsf600y · 17 Apr 2003 at 16:45

I am pro diesel, but they are noiser than petrols. No question.
There isnt much difference inside the car, but outside you can really notice it.

Of course though, exec type cars and anything that is priced higher than your average family car will be very quiet.

-Mike- · 17 Apr 2003 at 17:58

Originally posted by ZuG
because people are going by what diesels used to be. People still have it in their minds that diesels are dirty huge engines which are really slow and stink. This is simply not true with modern engines and people are beginning to realise this! Each year the percentage of cars sold is going higher for diesels because of the improved engines, improved speeds and the main 2 facts.

Diesels are 30% more efficient on average
Diesel engines last twice aslong.

What that man said!! I wasnt gonna reply as theres nothing more to be said but this above sums it all up quite nicely.

AmDaMan · 17 Apr 2003 at 17:59

My instructors car is a 1.4 corsa TD. To be really honest im not the slightest bit impressed but maybe thats just that car (infact i think it probably is) I prefer my dads Rover 800

! The petrol just feels more powerful than diesel i know thats a bit unfair but the corsa has a turbo remember

Ill probably be shown a nice example of a diesel soon though so im not too bothered if i end up owning a petrol or a diesel (after my mini of course!!!

)

izoneiz · 17 Apr 2003 at 18:06

im sorry if the following has been already mentioned, but:

the VW Toureg 5.0 V10 Diesel is a monster 300bhp god, that owns the petrol versions. 0-60 7 seconds.

and take a good look at merc's S class range. the diesel 320 costs less than the s350 yet is more powerful and more economical. when i saw powerful i mean torque.

a much better example is the following:

merc's e class:

the 320cdi costs about £800 cheaper than the e320 petrol, accelerates the same, yet has 3bhp more, and is much more economical!!

personally, im a petrol head for any car but luxobarges and maybe massive 4x4s (toureg, and range rover). when i saw luxobarge, i mean the cheaper variants, if im going the full hog, s600 all the way

IZONEIZ

izoneiz · 17 Apr 2003 at 18:18

im prepared to say that if a car has a diesel and a petrol variant, both cost the same, with the diesel being more powerful, AND more economical than the petrol, i would not object buying it.

IZONEIZ

-Mike- · 17 Apr 2003 at 18:26

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
What?

You people really are scraping the barrel now...

Mine doesnt smoke on acceleration and it's 8 years old, so I doubt the newer ones do it.

Mines 7 years old and no smoke, what you been following? A F reg montego TD or something?

Lopéz · 17 Apr 2003 at 18:41

I find petrol cars more engaging to drive, more responsive, and generally more "urgent" overall.
I am fully aware that new-generation diesel cars are excellent and perform well, but I can't afford one of them so I don't care.

Most cars in my range are around 10 years old - for that sort of money I would choose any petrol variant over a diesel - no matter what the vehicle.

moss · 17 Apr 2003 at 18:42

Originally posted by Lopéz
I find petrol cars more engaging to drive, more responsive, and generally more "urgent" overall.
I am fully aware that new-generation diesel cars are excellent and perform well, but I can't afford one of them so I don't care.

Most cars in my range are around 10 years old - for that sort of money I would choose any petrol variant over a diesel - no matter what the vehicle.

a fine point....its pointless arguing about 40k cars...which im guessing theres quite a few of us on here who couldnt afford them

Gilly · 17 Apr 2003 at 18:59

Originally posted by Lopéz
I find petrol cars more engaging to drive, more responsive, and generally more "urgent" overall.
I am fully aware that new-generation diesel cars are excellent and perform well, but I can't afford one of them so I don't care.

Most cars in my range are around 10 years old - for that sort of money I would choose any petrol variant over a diesel - no matter what the vehicle.

Point well made.

Much better than 'diesel is bad mmmmkay'

-Mike- · 17 Apr 2003 at 19:06

Originally posted by Lopéz
I find petrol cars more engaging to drive, more responsive, and generally more "urgent" overall.
I am fully aware that new-generation diesel cars are excellent and perform well, but I can't afford one of them so I don't care.

Most cars in my range are around 10 years old - for that sort of money I would choose any petrol variant over a diesel - no matter what the vehicle.

FINALLY a proper point made about it all. Played to you mr lopez!

Dogbreath · 17 Apr 2003 at 20:36

Originally posted by izoneiz
im sorry if the following has been already mentioned, but:

the VW Toureg 5.0 V10 Diesel is a monster 300bhp god, that owns the petrol versions. 0-60 7 seconds.

300BHP and it takes that long to trundle to 60? :eek:

It must be a hugely bloated tank. Got a piccy?

Couple of points:

A few people have said that diesels last twice as long as petrol engines. Personaly I don't believe that for a second. They do rev lower but they have so much higher combustion pressures that the forces inside the engine are comparable to the petrol at high RPM. Most decent petrol engines these days can take 200kmiles with few problems and by that stage the rest of the car is getting pretty tired.

As for emmisions, diesels were well known to have very high particulate emmsions, a type of polution that's very effective in causing lung cancer. Mmmm..nice. This was a basic reason for the huge tax hike the diesel took a few years back. Modern cars have particulate traps and oxidising cats which means that, combined with low sulphur fuels, they are now a lot better.

I'm not anti-diesel at all. They do a good job powering our trucks and trains thousands of miles everyday, and plant equipment would be hideoulsy expensive to run without diesel power. But cars...well, I think I'll have to drive a Golf GTiTDiXYZABC (or whatever it's called) to truly appreciate a modern diesel. I've had a go in a couple of TD's (Peugeot 405 and a Rover 400) and both of them impressed me...but not in a good way.

[TW]Fox · 17 Apr 2003 at 20:39

Originally posted by Dogbreath
300BHP and it takes that long to trundle to 60? It must be a hugely bloated tank. Got a piccy?

It is a bloated tank

It's VW's new softroader thing. Similar to the Porsche Cayanne.

I'm not anti-diesel at all. They do a good job powering our trucks and trains thousands of miles everyday, and plant equipment would be hideoulsy expensive to run without diesel power. But cars...well, I think I'll have to drive a Golf GTiTDiXYZABC (or whatever it's called) to truly appreciate a modern diesel. I've had a go in a couple of TD's (Peugeot 405 and a Rover 400) and both of them impressed me...but not in a good way.

Diesel will never offer the performance or enjoyment you get from your MR2 Turbo. However, for those of us who cannot insure a performance car, those of us who may travel lots of miles each month, etc etc, a turbo diesel engine in a normal car makes a lot of sense over a petrol engine.

izoneiz · 17 Apr 2003 at 20:41

Originally posted by Dogbreath
300BHP and it takes that long to trundle to 60? It must be a hugely bloated tank. Got a piccy?

Couple of points:

A few people have said that diesels last twice as long as petrol engines. Personaly I don't believe that for a second. They do rev lower but they have so much higher combustion pressures that the forces inside the engine are comparable to the petrol at high RPM. Most decent petrol engines these days can take 200kmiles with few problems and by that stage the rest of the car is getting pretty tired.

As for emmisions, diesels were well known to have very high particulate emmsions, a type of polution that's very effective in causing lung cancer. Mmmm..nice. This was a basic reason for the huge tax hike the diesel took a few years back. Modern cars have particulate traps and oxidising cats which means that, combined with low sulphur fuels, they are now a lot better.

I'm not anti-diesel at all. They do a good job powering our trucks and trains thousands of miles everyday, and plant equipment would be hideoulsy expensive to run without diesel power. But cars...well, I think I'll have to drive a Golf GTiTDiXYZABC (or whatever it's called) to truly appreciate a modern diesel. I've had a go in a couple of TD's (Peugeot 405 and a Rover 400) and both of them impressed me...but not in a good way.

yeah, its a very large car. but compare it to say a range rover, the diesel in that takes 12s to get to 60!.

IZoneIZ

Dogbreath · 17 Apr 2003 at 21:01

Originally posted by [TW]Fox
Diesel will never offer the performance or enjoyment you get from your MR2 Turbo. However, for those of us who cannot insure a performance car, those of us who may travel lots of miles each month, etc etc, a turbo diesel engine in a normal car makes a lot of sense over a petrol engine.

Well, not sure I can afford it, or at least justify it for much longer

I do around 700-800 miles per month at around 25mpg=126 litres at 83p a litre approx = £112 per month (on an average month)

Insurance = £815 pa = £68 per month

Loan which I used to buy the car is around £130 pm

It uses at least one set of tyres per year...say £300 per year = £25 pm

So that's...112+68+130+25 = £335 per month + servicing costs etc. OMG, no wonder I feel skint all the time.

Diesels Vs Petrol *DEBATE*

Diesels Vs Petrol DEBATE