Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thong
I find with modern diesels is when they’re running fine, they’re great. If they develop a problem with the DPF or Adblue system garages, even dealerships seem to struggle to fix them. I had a Transit Connect that had a turbo pipe fail. It didn’t take long for the DPF to clog up. Pipe replaced, and DPF cleaned out the van trooped up and down the motorways of the U.K. The emissions light kept coming in so the garage who fixed it tried to sirt it. The it went to a main dealer who tried to fix it. Changed a sensor aaaaannnddd…. The Emissions light kept coming on intermittently to the point I just ignored it. I’ve head this with other manufacturers where the emissions system loses its mind and nobody seems to be able to fix it. My neighbour has the same issue with his E6 Connect and he’s just traded it in for a Petrol Peugeot van that…. Yes you guessed it, has a timing belt that’s oil fed that comes with its own issues. Both out 1.5 diesel transits have this oil fed timing belt… That’s another story.
Modern engines are a pain when they fail but I’d reckon petrol engines are the lesser evil. Progress eh?
TT
|
I agree, diesels are good when they're running fine. There's just so much to go wrong with them though, especially as they've got more and more complicated as the years progressed. I know petrol presents its own problems and aren't always trouble free either, but generally, they aren't as expensive as a diesel when things go wrong.
You can tootle around town in a petrol car fine, do that in a diesel regularly and you'll end up with all sorts of problems. Diesel's have to be driven, and arguably, need to be maintained more than a petrol. I can see the benefit to having a petrol, even if it may cost more on fuel than a diesel because the mpg isn't usually as good, but there's less to worry about with regards to blocked EGR's, DPF's and so on... I think a petrol would "pay" for itself in ways. Just a shame that Volvo petrol engines are big and are a bit too thirsty for my liking.
I've heard of the wet timing belts in Ford's and other cars/vans they make. I'm not sure if other manufacturer's use this wet timing belt, but it seems like a stupid idea to me! Funny things is, nowadays, there's so many vehicles that actually use engines from other manufacturer's. For example;
-If you buy a Mercedes Citan diesel 1.5 van or Mercedes A-Class hatchback diesel (not the 2.0 litre, the smaller one, 1.5 or 1.6?), they both have a Renault engine.
-Buy a 1.5 Nissan Qashqai diesel... guess what? It has the same Renault engine used in the Mercedes Citan and Mercedes A Class.
-If you buy a new shape 2.0 litre diesel Nissan Primastar van, it has a Renault engine. The same engine is used in the Renault Trafic van.
-Buy a Citroen Relay van, it has a Peugeot engine. The same engine is used in the Vauxhall Movano and Peugeot Boxer vans.
-If you buy a Citroen Berlingo diesel van, it has a PSA engine that's used in many other vehicles on the market today. Some Volvo's use this engine!
The point I'm getting at is you may think you're escaping from engine troubles buying another vehicle, but chances are, you aren't buying a vehicle with an engine made by the manufacturer you're choosing to buy from (examples above show that)! Its good in ways I suppose, such as parts being more readily available I guess, but a very grey area if you don't do your research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Magpie
There was an article in Honest John about this very issue affecting all Euro 6 diesel. They stated that all is good when new or a few years old. But such is the complexity of the emission systems as they age and sensors, etc, start to mature, problems can arise, expensive problems that take a good deal of effort to resolve. It's a gamble with any modern diesel; after maybe five years, bills could be expensive, or you may be lucky and have no issues. I guess good fuel and regular maintenance are the key.
|
Yep. Maintenance is key, but even then, problems can arise! I think this is why lots of businesses with fleets of modern vehicles lease them. By the time any major problems do arise, then those vehicles are just swapped for something new under a new lease agreement and warranty. Or, if problems arise early within the lease agreement, they get an alternative vehicle to use whilst the other(s) are being fixed.
This is why leased vehicles are so popular. Yes, you don't own them, but when you think about it... You're basically paying to rent a new vehicle for x amount of years for around the same figure as what you'd lose on depreciation fully financing the same vehicle to own outright in x years. People often say "Oh, I'd never lease a vehicle, its a waste of money because you'll never own it", but they'll go out an buy a car on HP finance and lose thousands on depreciation, with a view to eventually owning it (often they don't, they swap for something else early).
The thousands lost on depreciation would more often than not lease them a new car anyway, and, what would the difference be if they never stick to the full term of the original HP agreement to outright own the vehicle they've paid finance on for the last x number of years? Its the same thing... they don't outright own the car on HP finance unless they settle it early or make all the payments. They don't own the leased car either. The only difference is you have the
chance to own the car on HP, but generally, the vast majority don't. They just keep financing and financing, never actually owning the cars they've financed.
I think this way in thinking usually works best with your normal every day cars/vans. If you want to lease a luxury vehicle, then the lease payments are usually through the roof.