I have already changed. Have had diesel for 10+ years but last change was to a 1.4tsi Octavia, (a surprisingly similar drive to my last 2.0 diesel Octavia), and the same "real" economy (45mpg). Main reason for me was lower annual mileage (about 8k), and worries about DPF costs.

 

Only problem is I now want a bigger caravan and I think the 1.4 may struggle. Problem is there is no real alternative bigger "petrol" engine in the Skoda range so I am now looking at Honda CRV.

Edited 12 November, 20169 yr by Stubod

It depends on the system. The original, full-fat VTEC (launched in 1989, as fitted to the Integra, Civic, CRX, NSX, Prelude) switched cams around 5,500 rpm, but then they did reach 8,000 so it was still just over half way around the range. Later systems such i-VTEC and others (which switched valves on and off rather than switching cam profiles) had varying activation points.

Of course the whole point of VTEC was to have a broader torque curve, with useful low-rev pull AND the ability to reach high revs to make power.

Honda has now adopted the small capacity turbo as the top-of-the-range engine and I think they are probably wishing they hadn't bothered with their diesel development work.

For heavy duty hot work the SCR diesel is still difficult to beat though.

I actually find tis discussion quite interesting s the majority of people are purely talking economics... Are there so few people who actually like the torque rich 'drive' of a diesel on a daily basis and tat push in the back when you boot it tat you don't get with petrol???

You do with a turbocharged petrol, which most are these days.

You do with a turbocharged petrol, which most are these days.

Our diesel-like 1.2 petrol 308 has averaged exactly 5L/100 with power and grunt

I actually find tis discussion quite interesting s the majority of people are purely talking economics... Are there so few people who actually like the torque rich 'drive' of a diesel on a daily basis and tat push in the back when you boot it tat you don't get with petrol???

This exactly my stance on it.

Yes we could have just about got away with a petrol and would have had more choice when looking for the Saab. Our annual mileage at the moment is borderline for a diesel... But...!

We just love diesels.

Like you say the shove you get and the ease they pull themselves along is what we love. It's a nice relaxed driving experience without feeling like you're having to keep your foot down all the time to keep up or get up hills.

Plus depending on make/model etc especially when looking at automatic vehicles (another personal choice for us) the gap between petrol and diesel in terms of economy is huge! And if nothing else I can't be bothered going to the petrol station every 300 miles!

Plus we have had the idea of a small-ish caravan or trailer tent in our minds for a while and a diesel just seems to make more sense here.

Edited 12 November, 20169 yr by Phil-E

"I don't think there has ever been a scrappage deal to persuade people to switch from petrol to diesel, has there?"............................. don't know if I didn't explain properly or if you did understand my post but I was referring to THE scrapage of older car some YEARS AGO when a lot of petrol cars were scrapped and the cheaper tax structure and better economy of diesels lead people to the change to diesel with this government incentive.

 

So, as I said in my post, there has been no diesel-specific scrappage scheme.  The tax advantages of diesel (fuel tax and emissions-based VED) were the same before, during and after the 2009-2010 scrappage scheme, which offered £2,000 off any new car where the p-ex vehicle was more than 10 years old.  That was made up of £1,000 from the government and £1,000 from the manufacturer (or more, if the manufacturer felt like it).

 

I'd therefore argue that, in the case of the scrappage scheme, there was again no "headlong persuasion" from the government to "go diesel".

I have already changed. Have had diesel for 10+ years but last change was to a 1.4tsi Octavia, (a surprisingly similar drive to my last 2.0 diesel Octavia), and the same "real" economy (45mpg). Main reason for me was lower annual mileage (about 8k), and worries about DPF costs.

 

Only problem is I now want a bigger caravan and I think the 1.4 may struggle. Problem is there is no real alternative bigger "petrol" engine in the Skoda range so I am now looking at Honda CRV.

Never owned a caravan as I don't like them at all, however I did move one with the CR-V about 20 miles as a favour to someone.  I couldn't tell you what model it was as they all look the same to me but it seemed big enough.  It towed no problem at all. I normally tow a single axle trailer (heavily) laden with wood and it pulls that no problem as well.

Edited 12 November, 20169 yr by x19

I wouldn't say that the choice is purely an economic one although that obviously plays a part in this kind of decision. On the whole I would much rather drive a car which is as eco friendly as possible and whilst the modern diesel engines are much cleaner than what was available 10 years ago, they are still relatively high polluting if used mainly for short journeys where the engine is rarely at its optimum temperatures, which sums up most of my journeys these days making petrol a no brainer for my circumstances. But, if I were doing a high mileage and/or towing a trailer or caravan, I wouldn't even look at a petrol engined cars, I like the torque of diesel engines and how they drive but have to say that my current car is the least powerful feeling diesel that I've driven, at least in town type driving at up to 40mph, where it is kind of gutless but take it out on a decent country road or motorway and the turbo finally kicks in and it has all the power that you could need. The uncertain thing right now is what is going to happen over the next few years about changes to Government attitude regarding diesel given the current pollution rows and the talk of banning diesel engined vehicles from some places entirely, some increase in road tax and/or fuel duty is a strong possibility and that is going to have an impact on the engine choices available to us in the future. I certainly didn't like the clouds of black smoke that my old Mondeo used to churn out, more progress to getting cleaner air would be made in offering owners of these older generation vehicles some inducement to scrap their cars completely as most of the pollution is probably coming from these older cars, buses and lorries and not from the more recent designs which even with the VW Scandal are still much cleaner than anything produced in the past.

When i was looking for my volvo i couldnt find a petrol one for sale at all,i wanted a diesel anyway as it was costing lots in fuel & tax to run my octavia,the tax is £30 a year instead of £23 a month with the octavia! & in 1500 miles ive used 2 tanks of fuel in the volvo instead of 4-5 with the octavia.

In terms of pollution it's not so much the big particles you can see as it is the nano particles that go straight through the lungs and into your circulation. I don't think anyone has found a real world solution to prevent the nano particles being released, mind you petrol engines also produce the particles but many factors of magnitude less than a diesel. 

In addition there are the NOx emissions and increasingly complex systems required to at least reduce diesel emissions. 

In the medium term I guess we will all be driving hybrids and in town the propulsion will be all electric and the petrol engine will be used out of town in less populated areas. Not ideal but until a practical all electric car can be mass produced which can be recharged as quickly as a petrol pump fills a tank then hybrids it is - of course fuel cells are another option but not sure how we sort the hydrogen storage/usage problem out.

^^^^^ we have many LPG pumps at nearly all servos which are being phased out.

I wonder if they can be converted to hydrogen storage.

However Toyota have indicated they are now more interested in BEV than fuel cell.

Edited 12 November, 20169 yr by Ryeman

The current problem seems to be that manufacturers seem to be loathe to offer petrol engines in some models.

I actually like my petrol yeti, although it would have been better with a 1.4 than 1.2. The only annoying thing is the slight rumble around 35-37 mpg in 7th gear if you are in traffic doing that speed. But a quick blip of throttle causes it to change back to 6th.

Having heard of £2000+ repair bills (twice) for modern diesels, I wouldn't touch one unless it was a lease car that goes back in 2-3 years before these expensive repairs start. No point in spending extra £1500 at start, and £2000 repair year 4 to save £50 per month on fuel.

Modern diesels aren't like the old ones that would run for 200,000 miles without major problems.

The current problem seems to be that manufacturers seem to be loathe to offer petrol engines in some models.

 

 

Quite so. And if you want 4WD with your petrol engine, you can't get it with a Qashqai, an Ateca, a CX-5, an X3, and no doubt others that I've forgotten.  Let's hope Skoda does not make the same mistake with the next Yeti.

For me it's about mileage.

If I did sub 10k a year I'd have a petrol but as I do over 20k a diesel is the only choice as a petrol mpg cannot compare at motorway speeds.

Edited 13 November, 20169 yr by tubbytommy

The current problem seems to be that manufacturers seem to be loathe to offer petrol engines in some models.

I actually like my petrol yeti, although it would have been better with a 1.4 than 1.2. The only annoying thing is the slight rumble around 35-37 mpg in 7th gear if you are in traffic doing that speed. But a quick blip of throttle causes it to change back to 6th.

Having heard of £2000+ repair bills (twice) for modern diesels, I wouldn't touch one unless it was a lease car that goes back in 2-3 years before these expensive repairs start. No point in spending extra £1500 at start, and £2000 repair year 4 to save £50 per month on fuel.

Modern diesels aren't like the old ones that would run for 200,000 miles without major problems.

Modern petrol engines are far from trouble free....ive 2 friends who have had major issues with their Ford ecoboost petrol engines & there is the well known issue with the TSI petrol engine timing chain tensioner which seems to end up with a new engine required & the burning oil issue with other VAG engines,we run a fleet of ford focus & kia ceed diesels for 4 years/100,000 miles+ at work & other than routine servicing & one new battery on a kia we have had no other issues at all. 

The current problem seems to be that manufacturers seem to be loathe to offer petrol engines in some models.

 

this is down to the emission limits they have to comply with cross their range, put a petrol engine in a larger Mercedes, or bmw x5 and the emissions are way up, put a diesel in and they drop right down

 

what we need is real world emission tests at type approval rather than the la la land tests we have at the moment, which favour small turbo engines

 

the American EPA tests are a lot more realistic for fuel figures, if you look at the new Toyota prius EU it gets over 90mpg, US EPA it gets mid 50's and if you look on fuelly the EPA figure looks pretty close to the bulk of users

Neither European Test figures or those in the USA have anything to do with a vehicle being used at its Max Gross Weight or as they might be used like towing the Max permissible weight.

Unladen / Kerb weights and Emissions & Economy are not even realistic to a vehicles Co2 / NoX emissions with just a driver out driving on roads in various weather conditions.

 

The Manufacturers know the real performance and efficiency & emissions under all conditions and weights carried because for R&D they build Mules then Pre-Production vehicles and they drive them in all sorts of environments under extreme conditions.

 

The various government just need to legislate that the Manufacturers share this information with Government Agencies.

Truth is that Governments never pushed for that because their economies require there Countries Manufacturers to be making money which has always really been 

more important than reducing pollution.

Fuel sales also raise Taxes & Duties and keeps the world going around.

The question for me is not so much moving away from diesel, which I will be doing anyway as I will be fully retiring and not commuting but getting what I want.

If I bought another existing Yeti I'd want at least a 1.4 petrol in SE L spec. I don't want an L&K especially because of the panoramic roof and so unless VWG/SUK have a change of heart I won't be buying one of those.

I've been loyal to manufacturers in the past, FIAT and VWG, and have always found a car in their range that suited my requirements.

I shall be looking at the new Yeti and others in the VWG range but for the first time for many, many years I will looking at other manufacturers particularly if VWG don't do the petrol engine or hybrid that I want.

Modern petrol engines are far from trouble free....ive 2 friends who have had major issues with their Ford ecoboost petrol engines & there is the well known issue with the TSI petrol engine timing chain tensioner which seems to end up with a new engine required & the burning oil issue with other VAG engines,we run a fleet of ford focus & kia ceed diesels for 4 years/100,000 miles+ at work & other than routine servicing & one new battery on a kia we have had no other issues at all. 

The 1.2 tsi and 1.4 tsi engines in the current yeti models are in the EA 211 family launched in 2015. These do not have a chain but an elastomer belt claimed to last the life of the engine [ we shall see]. My better half and I have ran VAG petrol engines since 2002 and not suffered any burning oil issues, whether that is only good luck who knows.

this is down to the emission limits they have to comply with cross their range, put a petrol engine in a larger Mercedes, or bmw x5 and the emissions are way up, put a diesel in and they drop right down

 

what we need is real world emission tests at type approval rather than the la la land tests we have at the moment, which favour small turbo engines

 

the American EPA tests are a lot more realistic for fuel figures, if you look at the new Toyota prius EU it gets over 90mpg, US EPA it gets mid 50's and if you look on fuelly the EPA figure looks pretty close to the bulk of users

 

Great idea; now define "real world"?

 rather than the la la land tests we have at the moment, which favour small turbo engines

 

 

 

In real life my small turbo petrol isn't that far off the official. Real life average 46 mpg - official 47.9mpg

 

However I have a friend who has a 1.6MPI Octavia 2011 SE special edition (no turbo, high revs on motorway, not direct injection and only the old VAG 8v engine) that uses much less fuel than the official figures would suggest

Edited 13 November, 20169 yr by bigjohn

Great idea; now define "real world"?

I think it has to be on a figure of 8 real track / road, not a rolling road so not as easy for manufacturers to defeat the test for the highway test, the urban test should be on one of the simulated urban environments with junctions and traffic lights etc

 

take it to half way between dry weight and maximum permitted load,

 

specify if heater,aircon, lights etc should be on so that it represents real world, i.e. keep the interior at 21deg  

I think it has to be on a figure of 8 real track / road, not a rolling road so not as easy for manufacturers to defeat the test for the highway test, the urban test should be on one of the simulated urban environments with junctions and traffic lights etc

 

take it to half way between dry weight and maximum permitted load,

 

specify if heater,aircon, lights etc should be on so that it represents real world, i.e. keep the interior at 21deg  

 

Fine, but what is "real world" to one country is not the same in another. Even in the UK it can change from place to place.

Difficult isn't it?

I suppose real world would be test the car on some sort of track so you have real wind resistance etc, it would be much better than the artificial lab tests we have at the moment

 

but having said that the results could be more variable depending on the time of year the test is completed

Edited 13 November, 20169 yr by bluecar1

Quite.

TBH, as long as all manufacturers use the same test, and we all know that it is under "lab" conditions, then we have a basis for comparison, even if it is not "real"