My last 3 cars have had diesel engines but, when I came to buy my new Octavia recently, I decided to analyse whether I should do the same again. I looked at it purely from a cost basis, as follows:

I compared an Octavia Elegance manual hatchback, with the 1.4 Tsi petrol engine, against one with a 2.0 TDi engine (about the same performance, on paper). Looking at the list prices (without VAT), the diesel would cost me an additional £2664. Purely from the brochure, combined mpg figures were 44.8 for the petrol, and 58.9 for the diesel. Current petrol prices in my area are 116.9p for petrol, and 117.9p for diesel.

Number-crunching that lot, I calculated that the fuel cost per mile for the petrol engine was 11.86p, and for the diesel, 9.10p. Therefore the 2.0 TDi costs 2.76p per mile less than the 1.4 Tsi.

To recoup the initial extra outlay of £2664, I would need to drive for 96,521 miles! As I only drive about 12-14,000 miles per year, and keep my car for only 3 years, it simply wasn't worth it.

I haven't taken into account things like servicing costs, insurance etc, but I think I have proved that, while petrol and diesel fuel prices are so similar, you need to be a high mileage driver to justify buying a diesel these days. At least on paper....

My last 3 cars have had diesel engines but, when I came to buy my new Octavia recently, I decided to analyse whether I should do the same again. I looked at it purely from a cost basis, as follows:

I compared an Octavia Elegance manual hatchback, with the 1.4 Tsi petrol engine, against one with a 2.0 TDi engine (about the same performance, on paper). Looking at the list prices (without VAT), the diesel would cost me an additional £2664. Purely from the brochure, combined mpg figures were 44.8 for the petrol, and 58.9 for the diesel. Current petrol prices in my area are 116.9p for petrol, and 117.9p for diesel.

Number-crunching that lot, I calculated that the fuel cost per mile for the petrol engine was 11.86p, and for the diesel, 9.10p. Therefore the 2.0 TDi costs 2.76p per mile less than the 1.4 Tsi.

To recoup the initial extra outlay of £2664, I would need to drive for 96,521 miles! As I only drive about 12-14,000 miles per year, and keep my car for only 3 years, it simply wasn't worth it.

I haven't taken into account things like servicing costs, insurance etc, but I think I have proved that, while petrol and diesel fuel prices are so similar, you need to be a high mileage driver to justify buying a diesel these days. At least on paper....

In the real world you are more likely to get about 40mpg for the petrol and 55 for the diesel - that will make a difference to your payback period, but more importantly you totally missed out that the diesel car will also be worth a lot more than the petrol after a few years.

Look at what a three year old golf with the two engines would be worth for a guide (as you couldn't get the 1.4 octavia back then) and I think you'll find that it will retain about two thirds of the premium over the petrol.

The break even point can be a hell of a lot earlier than most people think.

<edit> also you need to look at likely fuel prices over three years rather than just current ones.

Edited 13 October, 201015 yr by Dr Zoidberg

My last 3 cars have had diesel engines but, when I came to buy my new Octavia recently, I decided to analyse whether I should do the same again. I looked at it purely from a cost basis, as follows:

I compared an Octavia Elegance manual hatchback, with the 1.4 Tsi petrol engine, against one with a 2.0 TDi engine (about the same performance, on paper). Looking at the list prices (without VAT), the diesel would cost me an additional £2664. Purely from the brochure, combined mpg figures were 44.8 for the petrol, and 58.9 for the diesel. Current petrol prices in my area are 116.9p for petrol, and 117.9p for diesel.

Number-crunching that lot, I calculated that the fuel cost per mile for the petrol engine was 11.86p, and for the diesel, 9.10p. Therefore the 2.0 TDi costs 2.76p per mile less than the 1.4 Tsi.

To recoup the initial extra outlay of £2664, I would need to drive for 96,521 miles! As I only drive about 12-14,000 miles per year, and keep my car for only 3 years, it simply wasn't worth it.

I haven't taken into account things like servicing costs, insurance etc, but I think I have proved that, while petrol and diesel fuel prices are so similar, you need to be a high mileage driver to justify buying a diesel these days. At least on paper....

All of these calculations are fine - until you come to sell the vehicle. Then you will find a comparable diesel is worth more when it comes time to sell or part-ex. When I've personally looked in to this I've tended to find that, including purchase price, running costs and re-sale value, there's not a lot between petrol and diesel.

So unless you are thinking of keeping the car until it, or you, leaves the planet I'd choose which ever car you prefer

The break even point can be a hell of a lot earlier than most people think.

Most certainly. As posted above I think in real world driving the difference in mpg will be more than 10, probably closer to 20 in my experience. Yes, the 1.4 maybe can get over 40 but you have to drive them very carefully to acheieve that. I found driving petrol Octy's (not the 2.0T) I was often having to floor the throttle just to make progress, not so with the diesel - it's a much more relaxed affair as progress is effortless thanks to the extra torque. I cant get my diesel under 45mpg! Factor in the higher residuals and it's a much closer call than your initial calculations might suggest. Check out the prices on Autotrader, You cant give away a petrol Octavia (VRS exempt) at the moment, diesel residuals look much brighter.

10+ years ago the diesel needed more frequent servicing but that requirement has also died away.

Plenty to think about!

<edit> also you need to look at likely fuel prices over three years rather than just current ones.

Um. If you can factor that in then you could make enough money that I doubt you would care.

I think in the end it comes down to which you prefer to drive.... i have always been a petrol fan for what many will consider silly reasons...

The smell of diesel

the cold start rattle (yes i know they are alot better these days)

the lighter front end to the car

the driving experience (more rev range to play with)

I think your right, when you take into account what it will be worth when you sell it there isnt much in it over 3 years..... go for which one you prefer to drive!

As said, if you earn enough and not nitty picky with costs, go for Petrol. Diesel might give you more money when you sell, but also will be probably more problematic in maintenance and service costs.

Buying my vRS diesel secondhand means I am not suffering from the increased buying costs of a brand new car and instead benefit almost immediately from the extra mileage I will achieve per full tank of fuel. The new list price for a vRS with my spec is £22,500 but fortunately I am only paying just over £11k.

Edited 13 October, 201015 yr by sneeks

A good source of sound unbiased advice is the 'Honest John' website. HJ writes in the Telegraph. Have a look at the FAQ section for his thoughts in this area.

Several have pointed out quite correctly. that historically, diesels have been worth more than the equivalent model when it comes to trade in time. However, this might not always be the case because the great unwashed are waking up to the fact that diesels can bring huge bills if you are unlucky and the words 'Dual Mass Flywheels' and Diesel Particulate Filters' are getting known about.

It could pose a particular problem if a better, more reliable,technical solution could be found to remove particles. Imagine trading in your 2010 diesel in a few years time and the salesman says to you - "Sorry sir - since the introduction of the Dyson Vortex Particulate, (DVP), filter system, these early DPF cars are completely unsellable".

This isn't fantasy and I think it will happen. I have had a number of diesels in the past, but not this time. I got an Elegance 1.8TSI. Don't regret the decision for a moment. Absolutely cracking engine.

In the real world you are more likely to get about 40mpg for the petrol and 55 for the diesel - that will make a difference to your payback period, but more importantly you totally missed out that the diesel car will also be worth a lot more than the petrol after a few years.

Look at what a three year old golf with the two engines would be worth for a guide (as you couldn't get the 1.4 octavia back then) and I think you'll find that it will retain about two thirds of the premium over the petrol.

The break even point can be a hell of a lot earlier than most people think.

<edit> also you need to look at likely fuel prices over three years rather than just current ones.

Absolutely. I did a spreadsheet a while back that clearly demonstrated the payback can be in as little as 4000 miles per year. But people will keep insisting on perpetuating the myth you have to do 20000 miles a year to make it worthwhile. Do the maths and you can see the facts.

Here is the spreadsheet, published it online. Any figures in red you can change, you can see it's out of date now as prices of fuel and cars have changed.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuDIXnRxWUbPdGNqOUhoXzZhSy1Xamo3SnZSLVFVbHc&hl=en#gid=1

PS those mpg figures in the spreadsheet are from spiritmonitor.de which are real figures from real cars by users on the site. So no point in arguing over them with me!

I bought diesel just because I like the lump of torque from the 170 CR that I've got, and the 140 before it. As others have said in this thread and others, drive them both and see which you like. Fuel prices, like house prices can go up as well as down. On a purely unscientific basis, my car indicates 550-600 miles on a full tank on the display, costing the best part of £50 and petrol ones don't even come close to that figure. Check out the other threads too. I'd also dare to suggest that the DMF and DPF issues might be quite rare and a bit of scaremongering is good fun. I could also be wide of the mark too.

Edited 13 October, 201015 yr by Paul007

You are also assuming fuel prices will remain constant over the lifetime of the car.

I think not.

When it's £15 a gallon, the greater efficiency of the diesel will be of benefit, and you will still be able to occasionally drive.

And you can also do a quicker getaway from the starving zombie hordes.

Also worth buying now, as there is a huge amount of energy cost (soon to be rather expensive, imho) embodied in the production of the car itself.

A good source of sound unbiased advice is the 'Honest John' website. HJ writes in the Telegraph. Have a look at the FAQ section for his thoughts in this area.

Several have pointed out quite correctly. that historically, diesels have been worth more than the equivalent model when it comes to trade in time. However, this might not always be the case because the great unwashed are waking up to the fact that diesels can bring huge bills if you are unlucky and the words 'Dual Mass Flywheels' and Diesel Particulate Filters' are getting known about.

It could pose a particular problem if a better, more reliable,technical solution could be found to remove particles. Imagine trading in your 2010 diesel in a few years time and the salesman says to you - "Sorry sir - since the introduction of the Dyson Vortex Particulate, (DVP), filter system, these early DPF cars are completely unsellable".

This isn't fantasy and I think it will happen. I have had a number of diesels in the past, but not this time. I got an Elegance 1.8TSI. Don't regret the decision for a moment. Absolutely cracking engine.

I agree with you entirely! I have owned several diesel cars (from choice) and appreciated the torque of the engine and fuel economy which outweighed the disadvantages of noise, more vibration and more front end weight. However as you rightly mention there is the issue of DPF and Dual Mass Flywheels. I had the latter replaced on my previous car (a Mercedes); fortunately it was all done under warranty but I ascertained from the service desk that had I been paying they would have been looking for £2300! Now, I know VAG cars, Ford etc won't be as expensive but it is nonetheless a major repair - just Google Dual Mass Flywheel to see how common a problem it is.

For company car drivers, the personal tax issue will influence Diesel because of lower CO2, but for the private buyer like myself this is not consideration.

Final point - in my area, diesel fuel is up to 5p per litre more expensive than petrol. During the previous 3 years before the recession hit the difference peaked at 12p per litre. This is something else to be factored into the diesel/petrol argument. I think you need to be quite high mileage now for diesel to be the obvious choice in terms of lowest running costs. .

You're never going to get an unbiased view asking here. Most are hardened derv heads.

As the OP points out - if you do the complete math, there is little in it. Take a look at fleet news cost tables for instance. The difference is only about 2ppm.

£500 cambelt change sir?

I used that spreadsheet Excellent piece of coding

I own and drive a diesel vrs with 350 miles on the clock, i bought it because that was the car i preferred from test drives and reading reviews and opinions.

I am not biased in either direction fuel wise , both engines have their plus + minus points. The only person who can make this decision is YOU, it all comes down to personal choice, i ahe read about DPF & DMF problems but have also read about problems with petrol engines . At the end of the day ONLY YOU CAN decide.

GO WITH YOUR HEART and dont forget ENJOY!!!!!!!!

I just took a bath on a 2.5yr old diesel VW Passat, so I'm afraid I'm just not sold on the whole "diesel nets you more at the other end" thing. Ultimately, though, I did the maths just like you - factoring in a little more on the sale of the diesel - but even then, I needed to be doing seriously high mileage before I broke even choosing the diesel over the petrol. And, of course, the initial purchase price is lower, the fuel is cheaper, the servicing intervals are less (hence cheaper) and so on...

It's also worth remembering that you have to factor in that extra performance.... the other day I needed to pass someone on a country road and, in my new petrol VRS, I was chuffed to bits to be able to drop it down a couple of cogs and get past quickly and safely. There's a price to pay for that; well, depends whether you value it or not of course . I can potter and get 38mpg (hey, it's new and tight - might improve!) or I can smile and get 30...

Do the figures, be realistic and also think about what you want from a car. I've had diesel for many, many years now but for me, the bubble has burst. Some petrol cars are achieving very good economy these days.

Don't buy a car because you think it will be worth more in the future - things can change. I went from diesel to petrol and I am happy with my choice - lower purchase price helps me justify 65% -70% of the economy, but I'm not saying I'll never buy diesel again. New gen diesels with DPF don't suit my lifestyle at the mo as I only drive 4 miles to work, and don't do regular longer drives. I like my petrol as I think it drives like a diesel, lots of torque from my lovely turbo, but I like the ability to rev too occasionally. Petrol is now cheaper than diesel, and it will continue to get cheaper as more diesel cars put further demand on an infrastructure not suited to increased diesel production. I think there will be more progress made with petrol engines in the future too, as there has been with diesel over the last decade. But at the end of the day, it's your decision and go with what you're happiest with.

"You can't give away a petrol Octavia (VRS exempt) at the moment; diesel residuals look much brighter."

That was an interesting point which I hadn't thought about in the 1.8 v.2.0 thread I started a couple of days ago. Leaving aside petrol v diesel just for a moment, the 2.0 vRS (petrol) costs, new, about £2,000 more than the 1.8 Elegance using list prices. I buy my cars on PCPs, so taking a possible better residual value of the vRS into account, the difference in monthly payments might not be that great.

You're never going to get an unbiased view asking here. Most are hardened derv heads.

As the OP points out - if you do the complete math, there is little in it. Take a look at fleet news cost tables for instance. The difference is only about 2ppm.

£500 cambelt change sir?

You can have a 40,000 mile service plugs and everything , cambelt + water pump + tensioners for £547. The latest have chain belts so do not need changing at 4 years. Are you a cat or a dog person? This is what this thread is like, and always will be

You can have a 40,000 mile service plugs and everything , cambelt + water pump + tensioners for £547. The latest have chain belts so do not need changing at 4 years. Are you a cat or a dog person? This is what this thread is like, and always will be

Come back in 4 years and then tell me the price at the main dealer just to change a cambelt.1.4 Tsi engine has a camchain. All the latest VAG diesels still have a cambelt and AFAIK VAG still insist on a 4 year change (even if they dont need it). The point is diesels cost considerably more to service. Then there is the DPF,DMF,Adblue on the latest units too (New Sharan)

Chain belts?? No such thing AFAIK

Edited 14 October, 201015 yr by xman

Come back in 4 years and then tell me the price at the main dealer just to change a cambelt.1.4 Tsi engine has a camchain. All the latest VAG diesels still have a cambelt and AFAIK VAG still insist on a 4 year change (even if they dont need it). The point is diesels cost considerably more to service. Then there is the DPF,DMF,Adblue on the latest units too (New Sharan)

Chain belts?? No such thing AFAIK

With hindsight, we now know about DPF and DMF. When 5 years ago I had my BMW 320D the only "worry" on the forums was a blown turbo. OK, there was no DPF at that point but the DMF hadn't become an issue - but it did develop into a major one. I think the 1.4 TSI engine in my car is fantastic in terms of performance/economy blend. However we have no idea what we will be writing about with regard to these engines in 4/5 years time. For one example, 122BHP from such a small engine (1400cc) would not normally be associated with longevity! So, a word of caution here. I would certainly expect my servicing/maintenance costs for this engine to be less than diesel for my relatively low (sub 10K) annual mileage - but only time will tell...

With hindsight, we now know about DPF and DMF. When 5 years ago I had my BMW 320D the only "worry" on the forums was a blown turbo. OK, there was no DPF at that point but the DMF hadn't become an issue - but it did develop into a major one. I think the 1.4 TSI engine in my car is fantastic in terms of performance/economy blend. However we have no idea what we will be writing about with regard to these engines in 4/5 years time. For one example, 122BHP from such a small engine (1400cc) would not normally be associated with longevity! So, a word of caution here. I would certainly expect my servicing/maintenance costs for this engine to be less than diesel for my relatively low (sub 10K) annual mileage - but only time will tell...

There shoud be no more problems than any other manufacture.

122 bhp from a 1.4 is not anything to worry about. Rover where pushing 105 bhp from the 1.4 K sieries engine 20 years ago and they tune up to silly power. Ok so the K sieries proved to have its problems but most where down to poor maintainance.