Do diesels rule?

[chrisdc]

Originally Posted by david philips

the fuel this little peugeot uses 6.2 miles per litre, goodness my 19 year old 940 turbo petrol can manage that.

Err... David, I said 6.2 l/100km, that's 45.5mpg in your language

[chrisdc]

Guys, my little story was written very lightheartedly and partly in an attempt to cheer myself up and see the best in the situation.

With regard to comparing apples with butterflies, of course I see your point. There are several aspects to my observations. Economy is just one of them.

Given that the Peugeot is considerably lighter, and has a smaller engine, I would have expected the difference in fuel consumption to have been far greater. There is no way the petrol version (2.0l V50) could even come close to matching the
Peugeots consumption. So my point here was really that you can have this great big heavy automatic car giving the tiny little city runabout a 'run for it's money' in the fuel consumption stakes - purely because diesels are so much more efficient.

Having the little car on loan, I had a unique opportunity to see how it would compare given the same driver, route, load etc. over a significant period of time.

[chrisdc]

Power: It is to be expected that a 100kw turbo diesel with 320nm of torque on tap will outperform a 1400 / 1600 normally aspirated petrol. No surprises there. Of course the picture would change if you turbo charged the petrol, BUT, so too would the fuel consumption. And again, that was my point. You can have a big, heavy, automatic car outperforming a small city runabout AND still give it a 'run for it's money' in the fuel consumption stakes. Again, only possible with the big car if it's diesel. Strike 2 for the diesel.

[chrisdc]

Comfort and safety: The little car, with it's short wheelbase, bobs around on our roads like a cork on the sea. The longer heavier V50 does not. Again, not an apples with apples comparison. I know that. But I own the V50 and I'm borrowing the little Peugeot. And in the midst of my trials and tribulations with my Volvo, I'm still finding I would buy the same type of car again. And it would be a diesel, because I want the size and comfort, but I want the economy of the little car - or as close as I can possibly get Shall we say strike 3 for the diesel?

[chrisdc]

Comparing apples with apples: Actually, we were running identical Renault vans at work. We had 3 petrols and one diesel. (I insisted on a diesel for my own use) Fast forward several hundred thousand km and many years. Now we ONLY run diesel. Eventually no one wanted to drive the petrols. Why? Well Chris's diesel just went faster, had double the torque, never broke down, and used half the fuel. I got so peed-off at always finding MY van was out that I sold the rest and replaced them with diesels.

[chrisdc]

Reliability of diesel: Krisby makes a very valid point, in his experience, as in mine with the Volvo, there do seem to be things going wrong all the time. I think the Diesel engines themselves are fundamentally sound. It's all the stuff bolted on to them that seems to go wrong. The ever increasing emissions control standards modern engines have to meet seem to be compounding the problem - at least for the diesels at any rate. But historically, diesels were notoriously long lived and reliable.

[cookie]

diesel for plodding, turbo petrol for fun, biggest problem with oil burners, however reliable, and however powerful, the power band is small, 1500-4000 Vs 2500-6500 on a turbo petrol

I get better pence per mile on my D5 than on a pug 206 1.4 petrol, however the pug was more like driving a go kart (and with similar comfort) but easy to park, and fine for short journeys, V70 T5 and the V40 T4, both plenty of power, with fun and comfort, but fuel economy suffered, and found limits of engine and box on the T4, and exceeded them

[krisby]

Originally Posted by chrisdc

Reliability of diesel: Krisby makes a very valid point, in his experience, as in mine with the Volvo, there do seem to be things going wrong all the time. I think the Diesel engines themselves are fundamentally sound. It's all the stuff bolted on to them that seems to go wrong. The ever increasing emissions control standards modern engines have to meet seem to be compounding the problem - at least for the diesels at any rate. But historically, diesels were notoriously long lived and reliable.

Your right there, the engine itself will go to the moon, but the sensors and emissions blockers and regulators etc are what fail, generally they are cheap, but its the inconvenience that annoyed me the most.

[david philips]

Originally Posted by chrisdc

Err... David, I said 6.2 l/100km, that's 45.5mpg in your language

my mistake not the first and perhaps not the last ttfn.

[Tigrian]

My old Citroen smoker (110 C5) did over 10yrs and 120k miles with 2 faults - one a dodgy mirror switch from the factory found and fixed on inspection and two a fuel leak from the over pressure valve after 110k.

Not bad for the make and miles IMHO so diesels don't have to be bad

Also has a Toyota gas guzzler (petrol) once which I bought for the reliability and duly paid as was most unreliable car I have ever owned - even the old Renault 25 v6 was more reliable. Never had an engine management light so keen to come on and the only car ever I have had a seat belt fail on

Love my s60 D5 with polestar - 1 year in and nothings fallen off yet despite some harsh treatment. Would I buy another s60 - no I wouldn't but only because of the bracing for the r type meaning through loads have to be tiny to fit. Next car V60 (or V40 - such a pretty little thing). Yes the s edition jag and the big bmws were fast but Volvo had more comfort, better back seats and nicer to drive (sorry bmw fans but that new speed sensitive steering has ruined the feel - my old E36 coupe was so much better than the new cars to drive).

There now how's that for opinionated - flaming here we come!

Would have loved a c30 polestar mind - now they look like real fun