well i've had my latest lupo 1.4 tdi just over a week now, and i'm getting about 65mpg, is that a fail then?? with it's exorbitant £35 per year road tax

yes it's slow, yes it's noisy, no i dont care

That's the thing about diesels, the right car can save you money, but you need to be doing mental miles to break even on new.

And who thinks "right, I want a fast, fun car... I'll buy a tractor!"

And who thinks "right, I want a fast, fun car... I'll buy a tractor!"

Exactley.... I mean these people who buy 335d Beemers

That's the thing about diesels, the right car can save you money, but you need to be doing mental miles to break even on new.

And who thinks "right, I want a fast, fun car... I'll buy a tractor!"

me and i bet i've owned a few more fast fun turbo petrols than you:P The fabia vrs(its the only diesel i'd have)is the best car i have ever owned,better than my mk 2 octy,better than my gt4 celica,better than my vr4 galant and better than my skyline,its more fun,cheaper to run and won't get stolen from the local multistorey:D

oh i nearly forgot better than my chavvy imprezza type ra too

That's the thing about diesels, the right car can save you money, but you need to be doing mental miles to break even on new.

And who thinks "right, I want a fast, fun car... I'll buy a tractor!"

And with depreciation, you'd have to do even more.

Cars that can do over 55mpg easily are worth their salts. BUT the majority of dervs out there dont do much more than their petrol counterparts.

I remember working with a guy when we both had car allowences and claimed back per mile. My average was 42mpg in my mk1 1.8T Octy Eleg v his 2.0 Rover derv that just about hit 40.

I easily did as many miles per tank, yet he didnt believe a petrol car, even driven briskly (I didnt chase MPG) could do over 40 mpg on every tank. That car actually made me money on my mileage which meant if I did over 1k miles a month the car cost me zero to run privately.

Just wish the Mk2 could get nearer to 40mpg.

Given the choice I'd take a turbo petrol over a turbo diesel any day...

+1 but this debate will never be over and only seems to cover buying a new derv against a new petrol, buying either of them used can also lead to bigger savings when buying a derv over a petrol

+1 but this debate will never be over and only seems to cover buying a new derv against a new petrol, buying either of them used can also lead to bigger savings when buying a derv over a petrol

That and NA petrols always seem to get compared with turbo diesels...

It simply depends on two things:

Cost: Work it out for your own circumstance using cost of car, cost of fuel, mileage over projected time you will own car. Projected resale value.

Preference: What do you prefer to drive?

Personally I prefer diesel. I like the torque, don't want to have to rev an engine and I now find petrol engines really weedy. The downside is the noisy idle.

Diesel is also less likely to ignite after a crash.

Again with the comparison with Turbo Dervs and N/A Petrols!

My drive to work in the mornings is 6 miles, all at low speeds, certainly not getting over 40mph, and driven gently.

My fabia VRS returns 45mpg doing only this journey

My Saxo VTR 8 valve returns 40mpg doing the same journey

Different on a longer trip, Fab gets up to 63mpg sitting at 60mph

My drive to work in the mornings is 6 miles, all at low speeds, certainly not getting over 40mph, and driven gently.

My fabia VRS returns 45mpg doing only this journey

My Saxo VTR 8 valve returns 40mpg doing the same journey

Probably more to do with the fact a Saxo weighs 1 gram rather than the type of fuel !

Probably more to do with the fact a Saxo weighs 1 gram rather than the type of fuel !

Wow, just checked that, big difference

Fabia VRS 1315kg

Saxo VTR 840kg

1315kg seems a lot for a Fabia, does anyone know if thats correct? Came from Glass's car checkbook

lol

well i've had my latest lupo 1.4 tdi just over a week now, and i'm getting about 65mpg, is that a fail then?? with it's exorbitant £35 per year road tax

yes it's slow, yes it's noisy, no i dont care

Wow, just checked that, big difference

Fabia VRS 1315kg

Saxo VTR 840kg

1315kg seems a lot for a Fabia, does anyone know if thats correct? Came from Glass's car checkbook

It's correct - the Fabia vRS is a fat *******!

In 6 miles the diesel won't have warmed up properly tbh, so will have increased consumption

Meantime, I'm still waiting for this mythical petrol engine that has 3.0l torque, 2.0l power, and 1.4l economy in real World driving.

Me too. I seriously considered a 2.0 petrol DSG rather than the TDI Leon I bought, but no one I asked who had a petrol Golf/Leon/A3 could get the MPG figures in average, real-world use. If there was a petrol with a great big lump of torque, and the wide powerband and smoothness/quiet of a good petrol, but 40-50 mpg on my commute, I'd buy it.

It's correct - the Fabia vRS is a fat *******!

nah, Skoda list the kerb weight with five adults, a boot full of paving slabs and a roof box loaded with gold to keep the insurance group low

I love the torque of my Fabia vRS, but I am yearning for a nice high-revving petrol - more for the sound than anything else.

Still, with the price gap between petrol and diesel decreasing slowly (currently at 8p), maybe it will make more sense to keep the diesel after all...

It's correct - the Fabia vRS is a fat *******!

In 6 miles the diesel won't have warmed up properly tbh, so will have increased consumption

The Saxo, like the AX before it, is made of paper mache and a bit of string. You would probably die if you drove it into a fly.

I'm far from convinced by petrol engines with turbos. A friend of mine sold his turbo diesel Lexus to buy an Audi A4 2.0TFSI. His basis was that diesel was too expensive, and he calculated that his Lexus 220D did a certain MPG, and the Audi would do less but the lower cost of petrol would offset it. The result, total rubbish. The Audi was 'meant' to be doing high 30's on a run, it actually is returning 29 MPG.

Not long back a typical normally aspirated 2.0 petrol kicked out about 135 BHP, same as a VAG 1.9 TDi often did, Less torque obviously. The diesel was better on fuel by about 15 MPG, but if the turbo failed you'd lose a lot, if not all, of the savings you made from the replacement cost. You paid your money, you took your chances.

Now, the future is small petrol engines, with a turbo, and sometimes also a supercharger. These engines when tested in the media are not giving the MPG or torque of a comparible TDi, yet they have not just a turbo but maybe also a supercharger to go wrong.

It may well be that the petrol-turbo supercedes the TDi due to emissions regulations, but I've yet to know of one that can match it's MPG and to a lesser extent torque.

I appreciate this is all driven by emissions BS, but, to me a future of ever more complex small engined, expensive to fix cars is pointless to the owner.

As far as the 'war' of petrol v diesel. What war? You choose what the hell you want and let others get on with it.

A comparison of 2 cars, year-old Citroen C6 Executive V6s, and even the same colour and both autos:-

Petrol, 11k miles, £15_000.

TDi, 15k miles, £20_000.

Explain to me again how diesels have ridiculously long paybacks.

I'm far from convinced by petrol engines with turbos. A friend of mine sold his turbo diesel Lexus to buy an Audi A4 2.0TFSI. His basis was that diesel was too expensive, and he calculated that his Lexus 220D did a certain MPG, and the Audi would do less but the lower cost of petrol would offset it. The result, total rubbish. The Audi was 'meant' to be doing high 30's on a run, it actually is returning 29 MPG.

Something defintiely wrong with that if it was only doing that. Maybe it wasn't run in? It should be doing a lot more than that! Less than the diesel, but still more than 29mpg :eek:

A comparison of 2 cars, year-old Citroen C6 Executive V6s, and even the same colour and both autos:-

Petrol, 11k miles, £15_000.

TDi, 15k miles, £20_000.

Explain to me again how diesels have ridiculously long paybacks.

Big engined petrol cars depreciate like nothing else...

Skoda Octavia Hatchback data from Parkers....

1.9 TDI PD Elegance (2009) 5d DSG

vs

1.8 TSI Elegance 5d

Miles to break even 146,900

Time to break even at 12,000 miles per year 15 years

But if you take the DSG option off, it (rather randomly IMHO) defaults to....

1.9 TDI PD Elegance (2009) 5d

vs

1.4 TSI Elegance 5d

Miles to break even 71,550

Time to break even at 12,000 miles per year 6 years

OK - so lets revert back to the original comparison with the 1.8 TSI

1.9 TDI PD Elegance (2009) 5d

vs

1.8 TSI Elegance 5d

Miles to break even N/A

Time to break even at 12,000 miles per year N/A

Petrol FAIL or more a case of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics???

Something defintiely wrong with that if it was only doing that. Maybe it wasn't run in? It should be doing a lot more than that! Less than the diesel, but still more than 29mpg :eek:

Big engined petrol cars depreciate like nothing else...

It's run in, done 30,000, though he doesn't have the lightest of right feet. The thing really though is that it's just one of a number of petrol turbo cars friends have had, and every one has been a guzzler getting utterly nowhere near the official MPG, I know diesel figures do that too, but not to this extent. On paper the fuel cost differential can equalise the costs, but in reality I've never seen it happen to anybody who does any reasonable mileage.

Edited 31 March, 200917 yr by HotVRs

It's run in, done 30,000, though he doesn't have the lightest of right feet. The thing really though is that it's just one of a number of petrol turbo cars friends have had, and every one has been a guzzler getting nowhere near the official MPG. I know diesel figures do that too, but not to this extent. On paper the fuel cost differential can equalise the costs, but in reality I've never seen it happen.

That's very strange, my old Octavia vRS would do 40mpg on a run, and the TSI is supposedly more efficient than the 20vT :confused:

It's run in, done 30,000, though he doesn't have the lightest of right feet. The thing really though is that it's just one of a number of petrol turbo cars friends have had, and every one has been a guzzler getting utterly nowhere near the official MPG, I know diesel figures do that too, but not to this extent. On paper the fuel cost differential can equalise the costs, but in reality I've never seen it happen to anybody who does any reasonable mileage.

I managed book figures on a Focus ST over a full tank as well not the short trip the manufacturers base their figures on. :P