It amazes me all these examples of diesel drivers on forums that do very low miles; it seems that diesel really has been the lucrative motoring industry con of the decade.

Unfortunately for some people they are - a lot of manufacturers have bolted DPFs on to engines that were never designed to have them causing no end of problems -raising oil levels is a common one.

Would my PD engine be included in that 'bolt on' list ?

38,000 miles now, never a problem. No change in oil level, no smells or anything really, not even a warning light...ever. It just sounds a bit 'blowy' when it regens approx every 120 miles for 5 mins. Most people wouldnt notice it doing it. The Greenline PD has a modified injection camshaft to provide the pressure for post injection regen. So you could say its an engine designed for a DPF albeit a modified version of one that isnt.

Interesting to note my GL1 cannot keep the DPF clear by passive means only. Doesnt matter how you drive it on the motorway it will regen around 110 to 130 miles. Its been this way since new. I think the DPF on mine is smaller than the one on the 1.6CR engines.

I only have a diesel because I do the miles....over 24000 a year mostly fast A roads. 65-70 mpg I have saved a lot of cash. Fingers crossed on the DPF longevity.

Nope not correct.

Clue is in the name DPF Diesel Particulate Filter. The DPF reduces particulates which is a requirement of Euro 4 and 5. Modern diesels have Ultra efficient and accurate fueling systems that also reduce particulate emmissions and CO2.

But the DPF is restrictive, it requires energy to force the exhaust gases through it.

So modern TDi's would be more efficient and produce lower CO2 and could possibly be in a lower tax band without a DPF.

Modern diesels have DPF's to meet Euro5 particulate emmissions.

Euro 6 and Euro 7 will concentrate on toxic gas emmissions, the only way current technology can meet these targets is for Chemical scrubbers. Ford, GM and VAG have all said that the introdcution of this technology will mean diesel will only be financially viable in larger cars.

Cheers

Lee

Hence why SKODA are no longer putting diesel engines in small cars as from now onwards

What are the dangers from oil rise it has happened to me Roomster 1.2tdi and looks like it is on the rise again. Dealer changed oil the last time and filter.What is the fix for this or is there one at all. If what, should I be doing,I drive motorway most weeks, take car for spin at high revs and never had the regen light come,but the oil rise is my problem.Car only eight months old,can it be fixed.

Hence why SKODA are no longer putting diesel engines in small cars as from now onwards

Did you actually read my post?

I do actually run a diesel car myself. Skoda, Vag, Ford and GM have all said if they have to fit chemical scrubbing technology to diesel engines to meet emmission levels then the price differential will not be viable on small engines/cars.

Now this may be posturing by the big boys to try and limit the next Euro targets but it does remain the current position of the major manufacturers.

This is a quote from Dr Sholz Skoda's Head of Technical development.

According to Dr Scholz, before we see a switch to hybrid and electric cars in Skoda's heartland at the affordable end of the market there might be a swing away from diesel engines towards petrol. This would be driven by tough new Euro 6 European emissions standards due in 2014.

"For me we've got one more problem. We've got a problem with diesel engine technology in the future. The Euro 6 emissions regulations require us to put a lot of technology in the cars and these technologies cost a lot.

"So for me, the future is not diesel. It's petrol engines. We're working very hard to reduce the CO2 from petrol engines because of this."

Skoda is by no means alone in this and the use of small petrol engines, often with turbochargers to boost performance, is an emerging trend. It's particularly conspicuous in compact cars whose customers are more sensitive to the price increases that Euro 6 compliant diesel engines may necessitate.

Ford's UK engine boss that builds the majority of Ford Europe diesel engines at Dagenham recently voiced similar comments in WhatCar magazine a few months ago.

No official figures from Ford but Autocar have estimated the new Petrol Ecoboost 100PS in the Fiesta will obviously outperform the 1.6TDCi 95PS Ecotecnic, will be £20 a year more tax and will do 64mpg V's 78mpg. But the diesel premium is currently around £1500 which means you have to think long and hard about your choice. If that becomes a £2500-£3000 premium then diesel is a non starter really in a £12k Fiesta.

Vag's next gen TSi's are just around the corner so will be interesting to see how they compare.

Cheers

Lee

Edited 14 November, 201114 yr by logiclee

well thats that then, the small diesel is dead but for a wee while there will be nothing available but petrol,that is until hybrid/electric or hydrogen gets a hell of a lot cheaper, I have no issues with the DPF as I dont drive it like its about to break down, generally I have a leaden foot so revs are always on the 2.5k upwards, however diesel is on the way up again so if and when electric becomes a 200 mile on a charge and gets down to sub 20k i will have one, until then it'll be a diesel or petrol

well thats that then, the small diesel is dead but for a wee while there will be nothing available but petrol,that is until hybrid/electric or hydrogen gets a hell of a lot cheaper, I have no issues with the DPF as I dont drive it like its about to break down, generally I have a leaden foot so revs are always on the 2.5k upwards, however diesel is on the way up again so if and when electric becomes a 200 mile on a charge and gets down to sub 20k i will have one, until then it'll be a diesel or petrol

It's not bad news for us buyers though, the latest small petrol turbos from Ford and VAG have specific outputs of 125bhp/litre.

Now it's roumoured VAG have planned a 900cc 3 cylinder TSi and if we assume this will match or beat Ford's ecoboost 1.0 specific output figures and economy we should be looking at 110-120bhp and 65mpg in the Fabia.

So if we end up with a 120bhp turbo petrol with 65mpg (Petrols cheaper too) 150kg less on the front end v's the 1.6TDi for better handling and £1500 cheaper purchase price (Pre Euro6) then we the buyers are the winners.

It's all about choice and as ever the market will decide.

Electric tipping point for me is 200 mile range, 80mph cruising, backup power (Petrol/diesel generator) and £25k. Then I'll buy one instead of a big diesel saloon.

Cheers

Lee

Edited 14 November, 201114 yr by logiclee

Better start saving again

I drive a PD140 DPF DSG equipped Superb MK2, the car is now more than 3 years old and has never had a problem with the DPF. 18 months ago, I moved to within 1 mile of work and as a result my Superb monthly mileage is now around 300.

For the last 18 months my routine has consisted of 4 weeks of 10 miles per week commuting where the engine does not even get warm. Some weekends I may drive 20 miles on local roads with a 40mph limit, and others none. Once a month I do a 290 mile round trip to Hertfordshire from Dorset. I have more issues with the battery getting low on charge due to the short commute than I do with the DPF, especially at this time of year now I need to use headlights to get to and from work.

Once a year the car gets to lets its hair down during our annual holiday to the south of Spain, 4400 miles in 3 weeks on average.

I moved to within 1 mile of work and as a result my Superb monthly mileage is now around 300.

1 mile. I'd .....

a. get a bike

b. walk

Cheers

Lee

Lee makes some good points, but I believe, as I've mentioned before, the manufacturers are overstating the case for petrol against diesel in small cars. Many in the trade think this too and cannot understand why manufacturers are behaving like this as there is no problem with technology or cost as such and they reckon as Lee mentions that it is politically motivated. There are several points to make. Yes, there will be some increase in costs for small diesels due to what will probably be a nox cat of sorts. But I really don't think it will be anything like what is being talked about by the manufacturers. The technology isn't rocket science. At the moment you can buy a diesel car new for not much more than a petrol powered car. And at the moment, the diesel repays that slight extra cost in many ways. Lower road tax, around 40% average extra miles per gallon or more, and including getting back a higher resale price than it's petrol counterpart. Overall, you are better off even if you do low miles (yes I know people argue that's not the case but you just need to understand the sums). Although petrol cars are improving their mpg, nothing much else will change concerning diesel payback. The manufacturers do no doubt want to sell their petrol cars with turbos (and they are now becoming pretty good) and reduce R&D on small diesels, but there are many reasons why they won't. The EU governments on transport have stated that 'diesel must play a big part in reducing CO2 and oil imports'. Cars are one of the biggest produces of CO2 thoughout europe. Diesel has, and will continue to help in a major way to reduce CO2.. Next year we get to see the new Fabia's towards the end of the year. There is going to be a line up of diesels as per usual and all will comply with the relevant euro emissions laws for the release time. It's my guess it will have the CR1.6 pretty much as it is now but a new engine or revised version will be available for euro 6. Manufacturers won't want to lose out sales to traditional diesel buyers at anytime.

As Lee has indicated, we'll just have to see how much of a change the new euro laws bring, but certainly the new petrol engines are sounding very exciting and I for one will be keen to try one. And I'm a total diesel head!

Sorry to original poster for going maybe a bit off topic.

PS. Kie Skoda are not stopping putting diesel engines in there small cars for a long time, if ever.

A diesel should smoke.....it should also rattle and clatter when cold.

At least my PD manages two of those........

Poor little engine has Maf sensors, egr gates, DPF, regen.........its all wrong I tell you :'(

A diesel should smoke.....it should also rattle and clatter when cold.

At least my PD manages two of those........

Poor little engine has Maf sensors, egr gates, DPF, regen.........its all wrong I tell you

I have today been for a ride on an Enfield diesel. It did all the things you mention above. You'd have loved it Raisbeck. Didn't have a DPF though or much or anything else actually.

Edited 14 November, 201114 yr by Estate Man

A diesel should smoke.....it should also rattle and clatter when cold.

At least my PD manages two of those........

Poor little engine has Maf sensors, egr gates, DPF, regen.........its all wrong I tell you

Sorrrrry...don't know what's going on here. Can't post my reply just keeps adding a quote. Can't delete. Will try later.

Edited 14 November, 201114 yr by Estate Man

The big give away is the large can immediately after the turbo on the exhaust with two hoses coming out of it connected to a differential pressure sensor.....

Big box with no pipes/hoses is just a cat

Big box with pipes/hoses its a DPF

On the 1.6 CR Tdi the cat and DPF are separate with the DPF being under the car.

On the 1.6 CR Tdi the cat and DPF are separate with the DPF being under the car.

well you learn something new every day. I am surprised though. DPF needs heat so would have expected to see it right after the turbo.Pretty sure mine is a combined DPF and CAT. Wouldnt swear to it though

At 3 years/45k by my calcs the derv 105 is about 7% cheaper than the petrol 105 overall.

Whether that difference is worth it depends on your view-point of the children-killing Nox and fine-partical pollution - and of course that awful drone

I don't know what you are comparing it too and it doesn't even matter really, but if it's petrol Fabia against diesel Fabia, then you need to do the sums again. At 45k the diesel will retain a resale value much higher than the petrol engined version giving back much or all of it's initial small premium that may have been paid and retaining much more of the core value too. On top of that you will use about 40% less fuel, and then of course the tax saving too. Service costs are the same for each vehicle over 3 years. For me the saving differential when I bought my 1422cc PD TDI were around 15% over the three years on low miles. It's much more if you do the sort of miles you speak about on fuel alone let alone anything else. I've never ever met a diesel car owner who has not been better off by quite a bit due to a diesel purchase, even low mileage people.

well you learn something new every day. I am surprised though. DPF needs heat so would have expected to see it right after the turbo.Pretty sure mine is a combined DPF and CAT. Wouldnt swear to it though

It is on yours yes, no chance a PD would work otherwise. The CR however with greater control over post combustion injection can get the exhaust temps up for regeneration.

I don't know what you are comparing it too and it doesn't even matter really, but if it's petrol Fabia against diesel Fabia...I've never ever met a diesel car owner who has not been better off by quite a bit due to a diesel purchase, even low mileage people.

Yes that. You're right it doesn't really matter, horses for courses, I just challenge the view that diesel is way cheaper because it isn't at normal milage. There's more to motoring that cheap anyway.

But for the record, here is my calculation, looking at Fabia SE+ spec including the 20% 'VAT' discount currently running. Petrol at current prices @ 1.329, diesel @ 1.379 (local Esso today). Expected residuals per Parkers Guide.

TSi/105

Cost £11,111, residual £5,189 => capital cost £5,922

Fuel £5,081

Tax £180

Total £11,183

Derv/105

cost £11,919, residual £5,778 => capital cost £6,141

Fuel £4,179

Tax £40

Extra purchase interest (7.9% on £808 over 3 years) £96

Total £10,456

Assuming both on finance hence servicing inclusive.

Then petrol model is £728 more expensive overall, being 7%.

All interesting stuff. I have an engineering background but admit I have lost contact with most of the latest development relating to engines.

I have noticed over time that when faced with a problem relating to increasing the cost of something (like a car) someone somewhere around the world will come up with a clever trick and the market will shift in their favour.

As an example of such an opportunity, I got interested in using gas (LPG) in diesel engines way back when factory fork lift trucks started to run away when passing through an area contaminated with leaking fuel gas. From this there was developed a kit to provide a normal diesel engine with a small flow of LPG in order to produce a cleaner exhaust, and - optionally - greater power or improved fuel consumption.

You can still buy these kits to fit to older, simpler diesel engines. The computer bits on the current VAG diesels would give up if this were done, though. However, the secret of LPG is that the gases (propane and butane) burn relatively slowly meaning that there is heat at the end of the power stroke to burn the fine particles of smoke and produce a much cleaner exhaust. With an old smoky diesel engine, fitting one of these LPG kits cleans up the exhaust, particularly under full power operating conditions.

So there might be scope for VAG to investigate developing the current engines to use a small amount of LPG (less than 10%) as an exhaust cleaner. The stuff is readily available at most garages, it's relatively cheap and adds to the fuel supply rather than reducing power. It also offers scope to burn more diesel fuel producing more power without producing smoke.

Developing such a dual-fuel engine would be a big project but the dividend would be a very strong position in the car market.

SB

I just challenge the view that diesel is way cheaper because it isn't at normal milage.

Since when has anyone said that? The most common "con" to use your words on page 2 is that unless you do large miles then diesel isn't worth having... What most of us who run diesels say is to look carefully at the figures and then take into account your driving style and which you feel more comfortable with... That way you get the car that suits you best that could even be diesel at low miles, it worked for me a few years ago...

The big "con" is the tax on fuel...

(BTW we won't mention benzine in petrol when talking about poisoning our offspring, eh! )

Hi PM, As you know benzine is one of the problems with petrol particulates and one of the components that makes it so carcinogenic. The particulate matter from petrol engines has been found to contain left over saturates of benzine with a cocktail of other chemicals too. We all breath them in. With a DPF the diesels are as clean most of the time, and cleaner than petrol cars for some of the time as per the What Car tests, and Top Gear articles of a couple of years ago.

Pearce, those are interesting figures. After looking at them I notice you have factored in the finance costs. Perfectly reasonable to do that, but it distorts the figures slightly as everyone will have there own buying package that can alter your residual figures markedly. For example, I never buy a car or motorcycle new unless I get '0%' finance, and I always get '0%' everytime from the dealers or my agent. This means in effect I gain much much more from buying a diesel. This alters things quite a bit and of course some may pay much more for there finance than you are projecting and that will make the figures again look distorted. But it's the amount of fuel we use that will often decide which is best financially for each individual. So it does illustrate the point that I believe The PM is making about being comfortable with your purchase. Everyone has to make a decision about if a diesel will be best for them. As yet I've not found petrol to ever be the better financial buy for me or any of my friends, even low milers. Many people of course do not consider a diesel because they know little about them and believe they will pay too much for the purchase of one and believe the marginally higher fuel costs at the pump will make petrol cars cheaper. They just don't think about the higher residuals and the fact you get so much more to the gallon all the time than a petrol engined car without even trying.

Again, in reality, the cost of the diesel may well be much closer to the price of the petrol car. This was the case with my current Fabia, costing not much more than a petrol version at the time. I currently can buy the new Fabia Estate diesel 1.6cr for just £500 more than a new petrol TSI equivalent (yes I'm hoping to order a new one in the next few weeks). It's what you are prepared to negotiate and although it may vary from dealer to dealer that initial diesel premium doesn't have to be big and certainly not anywhere near as big as in your figures. Again, making the diesel an even better buy.

One other point Pearce, it looks to me as if you have gone too heavy on the derv for covering 15k per year. If you have used the combined figure shown in the brochure then fair enough as a reference point, this gives the diesel 26% more miles per gallon advantage over a petrol car. But in reality the diesel will open up that gap much more and for many the combined figure will give them around 35-40% mpg's more miles per gallon extra over the petrol car. The petrol TSI is good on fuel but the average driver needs to try harder to get near the book figures. No, I'm not saying the diesel will achieve book figures for everyone but just that it is easy to achieve very very good mpg from one. For example, my sister 105ps cr1.6 manages a combined for the year of 64mpg. We know this because she has been taking part in a fuel survey where she meticulously records miles and fuel used as per pencil and paper method for 4 months and trip for the remaining time. Another example: last week I went to the NEC in a 1.2TSI a trip of 170 miles from my home. It was my colleagues car and so with the 2 of us in it we achieved just 46.5mpg at 60-70mph. He was disappointed. We did the self same trip a week earlier in my sisters car with 3 of us in it and achieved 69mpg at the same sorts of speeds of 60-70mph. Thats a wopping 33% more mpg carrying more people.

So just saying, it's not quite as clear cut as you may think. Reality is very kind to diesels as they do deliver in lots of ways. There are many many other advantages to owning a diesel as well, too many to mention here. I'm not anti petrol engines either although I probably sound like it.

Dunno why this has happened, can't delete it. Sorrrrry.....!!

Edited 15 November, 201114 yr by Estate Man

All interesting stuff. I have an engineering background but admit I have lost contact with most of the latest development relating to engines.

I have noticed over time that when faced with a problem relating to increasing the cost of something (like a car) someone somewhere around the world will come up with a clever trick and the market will shift in their favour.

As an example of such an opportunity, I got interested in using gas (LPG) in diesel engines way back when factory fork lift trucks started to run away when passing through an area contaminated with leaking fuel gas. From this there was developed a kit to provide a normal diesel engine with a small flow of LPG in order to produce a cleaner exhaust, and - optionally - greater power or improved fuel consumption.

You can still buy these kits to fit to older, simpler diesel engines. The computer bits on the current VAG diesels would give up if this were done, though. However, the secret of LPG is that the gases (propane and butane) burn relatively slowly meaning that there is heat at the end of the power stroke to burn the fine particles of smoke and produce a much cleaner exhaust. With an old smoky diesel engine, fitting one of these LPG kits cleans up the exhaust, particularly under full power operating conditions.

So there might be scope for VAG to investigate developing the current engines to use a small amount of LPG (less than 10%) as an exhaust cleaner. The stuff is readily available at most garages, it's relatively cheap and adds to the fuel supply rather than reducing power. It also offers scope to burn more diesel fuel producing more power without producing smoke.

Developing such a dual-fuel engine would be a big project but the dividend would be a very strong position in the car market.

SB

Hi SlowBloke, this is a really interesting post. I think the future for diesels is huge and the way forward in terms of diesel fuel is pure bio fuel produced from either crops or bacteria, rather than the mix we have now. Pure bio diesel is so good that it reduces nox and particulate matter by very large amounts over current diesel fuels (note: some non pure bio increases particulates). The new engines in the pipeline will take advantage of these fuels. It's going to be a while before that happens though. The LPG additive you speak of makes diesel engines more unstable at higher outputs/revs so I don't think it would be to suitable for proper road going engines and the cost would be high too. I'm sure the instability would be overcome but the fuel system would need a complete redesign to cope with the ensuing lube problems of high pressure pumps this would cause. Interesting though. :yes: