I've had and my dad has had many many miles problem free in pd130 and pd105 engines vehicles.

As long as the oil is changed every 10k with Pd oil (vw505.01) they are blissfull.

 

15 minutes ago, Lofty79 said:

I've had and my dad has had many many miles problem free in pd130 and pd105 engines vehicles.

As long as the oil is changed every 10k with Pd oil (vw505.01) they are blissfull.

 

I loved the PD engine, unfortunately, my sons Athsma didn't.  I had a MK1 Fabia vRS, and a transit 2.2 diesel, neither were smokey or anything.  Noticed my sons breathing got worse if I started the car/van before he got in it to go to school in the morning, and as I didn't need the big van anymore, I changed it for the Caddy.  Hasn't had an Athsma attack since, so I changed the MK1 Fabia for Brimma's home brew 1.6cr vRS replica just to be on the safe side, and it is all good.  As soon as he buggers off to Uni in a few years I will get another mk1 vRS as I loved that car, but for the moment dpf motors only for me.

Edited 9 December, 20178 yr by Jaspire

Wow that's sensitive lungs. What a shame.

I too am blighted with asthma although not to that level. 

It must be a pain in traffic or behind a bus. 

Dpf cars aren't nearly as reliable however my dad has had a 2.0 tdi 2009 passat for many miles problem free. 

The pre 2008 ones had a very bad oil pump issue that ended in catastrophic engine failure.

He gets 49mpg mixed and near 60mpg on a cruise at 70mph.

On cruise at 70 he gets 55mpg

1 hour ago, Ju1ian1001 said:

If you want/need ESP, anything built/ registered on or after 01/03/2010 must have esp as standard, thats when it became mandatory for ALL manufactures to fit it to uk and european spec vehicles, so will be standard on all 2010 onwards octavia's and Seat's.

 

I don't think that's right.

 

I think any new model needs ESP but existing ones don't. My '61 plate didn't have it as standard...

November 2014 before it eventually became mandatory.

Skoda were still not fitting it up to 2013 on some Fabia and it was an extra cost option, that was after almost all others manufacturers did have it as standard.

16 hours ago, Jaspire said:

I loved the PD engine, unfortunately, my sons Athsma didn't.  I had a MK1 Fabia vRS, and a transit 2.2 diesel, neither were smokey or anything.  Noticed my sons breathing got worse if I started the car/van before he got in it to go to school in the morning, and as I didn't need the big van anymore, I changed it for the Caddy.  Hasn't had an Athsma attack since, so I changed the MK1 Fabia for Brimma's home brew 1.6cr vRS replica just to be on the safe side, and it is all good.  As soon as he buggers off to Uni in a few years I will get another mk1 vRS as I loved that car, but for the moment dpf motors only for me.

 

There is now a new report in the BJM that small particulates, linked mainly to diesel pollution, is causing poor outcomes in pregnancy in London etc....

This might well accelerate the banning, and therefore further fall in diesel car residual values.

 

================================================================================================================

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5511

Traffic pollution is linked to poor pregnancy outcomes

BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5511 (Published 05 December 2017)Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j5511

 

Only policy makers have the power to protect women and unborn babies

The conditions that a developing baby is exposed to in the womb can affect its growth and development, with lifelong implications for health.1 Exposure to environmental chemicals and stress in utero can lead to functional changes in tissues, and predispose the child to diseases that manifest later in life. Being born small is the most well studied marker of such future ill health, with birthweight inversely correlated with cardiovascular and metabolic diseases.1   In this issue, Smith and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.j5299) report that air pollution from road traffic, but not traffic noise, is associated with low birth weight at term.2 The inference is that reducing exposure to air pollution from road traffic will not only improve the health of current adult populations, but has the potential to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases in future generations too.   The association between air pollution, pregnancy complications, and childhood illness is not new. Small particle pollution exposure in pregnancy has previously been linked to fetal growth,3 as well as preterm birth,4 stillbirth,5and respiratory morbidity in children.6 However, while these associations are biologically plausible, underlying causal mechanisms are not yet established. In their retrospective cohort study of pregnant women and their babies in London, Smith and colleagues distinguish between particulate matter from primary exhaust pollution and from other particle pollution sources, which is a helpful step towards isolating sources and composition of particle pollution that are most harmful.2

 

^^^^ the public perception; diesel bad, petrol better but battery best.

You can’t fight public perception if the media aren’t on your side either.

13 minutes ago, Ryeman said:

^^^^ the public perception; diesel bad, petrol better but battery best.   You can’t fight public perception if the media aren’t on your side either.

 

When the World Heath Organisation and down the local urban councils and everyone inbetween is saying similar things the message is constant and loud.

 

It could be worse as it is for the people of cities like Delhi, Kolkuta are ten times worse than UK cites like Brum and London.... http://aqicn.org/city/birmingham/

(But we are not far under the 100 score level where some suffer).   Australia quite good at the moment...  

 

Just need the tax incentives to move over ASAP and to the maths of the true costs of people not being able to function/work when suffering the effects of poor air quality. 

 

^^^^^ as discussed before, I can’t see much advantage in diesel beyond heavy work when all the potential and v real problems are factored in ..... and when it comes to reselling it an every shrinking buyer pool at that.

7 hours ago, Ryeman said:

^^^^^ as discussed before, I can’t see much advantage in diesel beyond heavy work when all the potential and v real problems are factored in ..... and when it comes to reselling it an every shrinking buyer pool at that.

 

In most European countries Diesel is substantially cheaper than petrol and if you are belting around at around the legal maximum speeds, 130-140 kph in France and Spain and sometimes at over 200 kph in Germany, when the fuel consumption is dropping to around 40 mpg or below, it is hard to justify a petrol in those circumstances on economic grounds.  http://www.fuel-prices-europe.info/index.php?sort=5 

 

Of course France and Spain has much lower population density than GB and Germany and pollution, except in the major cities such as Madrid and Paris and they are taking measures to restricted high polluting cars on entering cities so that can influence the choice of car as well as economics, my head office is in Paris as some companies are.

 

In the UK the buy price, new or second hand,  depreciation and the running costs of fuel, servicing are all factors that can influence are choices in addition to the factor of having a marque on one's driveway that one is "proud" of which is a key factor to many I surmise, not to Skoda owners where there is still a little bit of stigma rattling around.  To some of us who purely appreciate the engineering and have a reverse snobbery on these things it is a not only a factor of good economics but of riding a wave of the changing times of what is made where and by whom to one's own advantage and others.  Perceptions that everything German is wonderful and the best and anything else is inferior does not apply in other industries such as aerospace so why should it be the general impression in automotive. Recent cars and automotive parts from odd places like the Balkans promote a rethink I suggest.        

^^^^ that’s the heavy work, but so many never actually needed the grunt but probably bought on perceived savings whilst puddling around town.

1 hour ago, Ryeman said:

^^^^ that’s the heavy work, but so many never actually needed the grunt but probably bought on perceived savings whilst puddling around town.

 

Average Brit drives only 8k miles a year -

 http://blog.greenflag.com/2017/how-to-check-how-many-miles-you-drive-each-year-and-avoid-invalidating-your-insurance/

 

Driving less than 10k miles a year probably ups one cost per mile well above those doing in the 10k to 20k sweet spot whilst over 20k and in the range of 30k-50k seems to go past prime cost per mile.   

 

Getting hold of those low mileage cars handed in after 3 years of toodling around ie value has halved and then one can stick 20k plus per year and still have a not too warn out car after 5 or 6 years ie only 60-80k miles and avoid the over 100k miles when issues start to appear.  Also depends on types of journeys.  Castrol once said there is more damage done in the first two minutes after startup than in the next two hours of cruising so several long journeys is better than lots of short journeys.   EVs less so I imagine.  

1 minute ago, lol-lol said:

 

Average Brit drives only 8k miles a year -

 http://blog.greenflag.com/2017/how-to-check-how-many-miles-you-drive-each-year-and-avoid-invalidating-your-insurance/

 

Driving less than 10k miles a year probably ups one cost per mile well above those doing in the 10k to 20k sweet spot whilst over 20k and in the range of 30k-50k seems to go past prime cost per mile.   

 

Getting hold of those low mileage cars handed in after 3 years of toodling around ie value has halved and then one can stick 20k plus per year and still have a not too warn out car after 5 or 6 years ie only 60-80k miles and avoid the over 100k miles when issues start to appear.  Also depends on types of journeys.  Castrol once said there is more damage done in the first two minutes after startup than in the next two hours of cruising so several long journeys is better than lots of short journeys.   EVs less so I imagine.  

Even less reason to buy a ‘low mileage, driven to church on sunday’ example.

Either way it’s Russian roulette.

(Peugeot rumours of the new engines (petrol) being less economical, higher CO2 emissions.......my guess due to GPF as standard from 2018 and once old stock has run out......you’re stuck with it ......and that’s after cylinder deactivation added it can’t get back to square one) 

Diesel never made sense in cities, even more so when DPFs etc were brought in but the Gov still promoted them when CO2 was the devil.

Now Nox and particulates are the Devil, so engines built and tuned for low CO2 pump out Nox. as usual the government trhinks it cane be made to go away with the wave of a technology wand.

 

Diesel will still suit the OPs needs for this. Long steady runs were where derv works.

 

Honda Accord has a massive tank as does the Passat. I could get 800 miles on one fill. but ok filling it from empty was a depressing job.

Mazda 3 had a tiny tank, even getting 55mpg it was  PITA needing topped up all the time.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Ryeman said:

Even less reason to buy a ‘low mileage, driven to church on sunday’ example.  Either way it’s Russian roulette.

(Peugeot rumours of the new engines (petrol) being less economical, higher CO2 emissions.......my guess due to GPF as standard from 2018 and once old stock has run out......you’re stuck with it ......and that’s after cylinder deactivation added it can’t get back to square one) 

 

I seem to buy cars that were previously owned by kindergarten teachers or vicars.  If they were doing 5-10 miles on Naturally aspirated petrol cars then that is fine.  Picked up several with between 15 and 20 k miles, three years old, half there new price, good motors for the offspring as cheap to insure as well.  

On the flip side bought a lovely S type Jaaag, 2.5l auto, silly money but they are money pits as something always going wrong and 2-3 hours to change the spark plugs on awkward bank of the V engine is frustrating!    

 

I found the solution, cheap new, car, with the maker's warranty  they picked up the cost of a new gearbox at 52k miles.  As you know a one litre petrol is quite capable of cruising at 130 kph/80 mph, hauling 4/5 adults and 600 litres of luggage.  Cheap and high mileage, no worries motoring and trade in at 60 to 100k. 

 

In the good(?) old days of filthy diesel emissions the oily start was my preference for the short cold trips. Not any more though.

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 12:48, lol-lol said:

 

There is now a new report in the BJM that small particulates, linked mainly to diesel pollution, is causing poor outcomes in pregnancy in London etc....

This might well accelerate the banning, and therefore further fall in diesel car residual values.

 

================================================================================================================

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5511

Traffic pollution is linked to poor pregnancy outcomes

BMJ 2017; 359 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j5511 (Published 05 December 2017)Cite this as: BMJ 2017;359:j5511

 

Only policy makers have the power to protect women and unborn babies

The conditions that a developing baby is exposed to in the womb can affect its growth and development, with lifelong implications for health.1 Exposure to environmental chemicals and stress in utero can lead to functional changes in tissues, and predispose the child to diseases that manifest later in life. Being born small is the most well studied marker of such future ill health, with birthweight inversely correlated with cardiovascular and metabolic diseases.1   In this issue, Smith and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.j5299) report that air pollution from road traffic, but not traffic noise, is associated with low birth weight at term.2 The inference is that reducing exposure to air pollution from road traffic will not only improve the health of current adult populations, but has the potential to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases in future generations too.   The association between air pollution, pregnancy complications, and childhood illness is not new. Small particle pollution exposure in pregnancy has previously been linked to fetal growth,3 as well as preterm birth,4 stillbirth,5and respiratory morbidity in children.6 However, while these associations are biologically plausible, underlying causal mechanisms are not yet established. In their retrospective cohort study of pregnant women and their babies in London, Smith and colleagues distinguish between particulate matter from primary exhaust pollution and from other particle pollution sources, which is a helpful step towards isolating sources and composition of particle pollution that are most harmful.2

 

Suits me, I'll get a great deal on a good diesel car when the time comes.  A modern diesel with all the emissions gubbins intact and working is perfectly acceptable to me, living in Kilmarnock. 

 

Diesel powered vehicles are not the problem in London, Traffic is.  How funny is it going be when the North circular is covered in stranded Nissan Leafs who have run out of power sitting in a jam, quite literally unable to go anywhere unless someone comes along with a diesel powered generator and an extension cable? 

 

The only way they are going to fix London is a complete ban for non resident private transport, hydrogen powered trucks and buses, or electric buses which stop for 20 minutes to recharge or have 10 second in ground recharging at every bus stop, and massive park and rides, with a days public transport for users included in the daily parking rate, at strategic points around the circular or M25. 

 

Glasgow won't do any banning or any of that stuff for a long time, probably until more than 60% of peoples transport changes.  Too much work for not alot of money and a butt load of hassle, and the M8, quite literally, runs right through the middle of Glasgow City Centre, and the M74 passes through the south of the city centre.  They would probably manage it in Edinburgh if they had the will power and weren't concerned with being voted out of office, but Edinburgh is a horrible place to drive in and I can't understand anyone wanting to drive there anyway.  It was **** before the Trams went in, and they haven't made it any easier for road traffic to get around since they were installed.  They have a big park and ride at The Gyle for the tram users, and a normal one about 2 miles away at Hermiston Gate, and that's it, the other 12 miles or so of the A720 gets feck all.  Bearing in mind that for almost 2 hours the queue along the Edinburgh bound M8 runs for about 25 miles, they really need to do something. 

 

Anyway I look forward to my cheap luxo barge in due course!

Glasgow has low emission zones coming very soon while all that traffic still goes over the Kingston Bridge.

Edinburgh as well, and Perth. Inverness, Aberdeen and various other places in Scotland.

 

 

Work underway to create Glasgow Low Emission Zone by 2018 - Glasgow Live.mhtml

First Low Emission Zone for Glasgow.mhtml

Edited 11 December, 20178 yr by AwaoffSki

I don't doubt it, but not for a while, and Glasgow won't have a blanket coverage until a used electric car in Springburn, Tollcross or Parkhead can be bought for less than a grand.  Glasgow's traffic isn't that bad compared to London.  If they did a proper job on the orbital which would allow them to effectively move the M8 north of the city and traffic from the M77 could by pass Glasgow without having to go through East Kilbride, then a blanket coverage would be possible, but residents in these areas, and the same problem occurs in most cities, tend to be amongst the least wealthy.  If you try and tell them they can't have a £500 banger to get them about, you will have to find yourself another job councillor, cause after the next local election you will be out on your arse.  Like I said before elsewhere on the site, no one has the politically suicidal will to force these measures through without the monumental amounts of cash it would take to make other means of transport as viable, or it would have been done already. Once you can get an  'emission free' car on the cheap, then it will go through easily, otherwise it will be seen as another stab at the poorest who need transport to get to work but can't afford 5 grand for a used Renault twizzy never mind 30 for a new Tesla model 3.

 

Glasgow's Low Emissions Zone has been announced by the SNP government for next year, with all major cities having one announced by 2020, but the area is tiny, and the local council has already said they aren't going to enforce it until public transport is up to scratch and ultra low/non polluting before they even look at any other vehicles.

 

Aren't we going a little off topic, the guy only asked for advice about fuel consumption..

Edited 11 December, 20178 yr by Jaspire
Not finished

That is OK then, if you do not need to enter those Low Emission Zones with a non Low Emission vehicle then no wuckin furries.

http://drivedundeeelectric.co.uk/in-dundee 

 

6 years interest free loans on EV's & free charging will have those that do need to thinking seriously about it.

http://energysavingtrust.org.uk/scotland/grants-loans/electric-vehicle-loan 

 

As to 'the only plug-in vehicle owned by the applicant etc

'  you do not register 'Owners' just Registered Keepers, and that can be a Friend, partner etc.

A bit like that 'First Time Buyer' discounts / loans to those buying a New Home, a bit of room for 'dishonesty' with other Tax Payers 

paying for those 'cheating'.

Edited 11 December, 20178 yr by AwaoffSki

Hybrids were recommended above but as usual there are pros and cons for them.

The groundbreaking Toyota hybrid have proven to be exceptionally reliable (300k+ by taxi drivers), probably over engineered, and comparative tests have shown them to be very economical around town. Those same comparative tests have also highlighted they are less suited to the open road where a diesel is the most economical.

Simple logic really as some energy is recovered from braking on a hybrid as opposed to being pure waste on a normal car.

 

I have a 1.4tsi Octavia, overall average just over 45mpg and usually get 50+mpg on a run, around town I can get anywhere between 45 and 60mpg depending on conditions, but the wife in similar urban conditions gets 30% worse consumption, so driving technique accounts for a lot.

 

A second hand Kia diesel may still have some of the seven year warranty left. The C'eed I hired for a month in the UK gave me 60mpg overall average although driving experience was ok it was not inspiring.

6 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Hybrids were recommended above but as usual there are pros and cons for them. The groundbreaking Toyota hybrid have proven to be exceptionally reliable (300k+ by taxi drivers), probably over engineered, and comparative tests have shown them to be very economical around town. Those same comparative tests have also highlighted they are less suited to the open road where a diesel is the most economical.  Simple logic really as some energy is recovered from braking on a hybrid as opposed to being pure waste on a normal car.  I have a 1.4tsi Octavia, overall average just over 45mpg and usually get 50+mpg on a run, around town I can get anywhere between 45 and 60mpg depending on conditions, but the wife in similar urban conditions gets 30% worse consumption, so driving technique accounts for a lot.  A second hand Kia diesel may still have some of the seven year warranty left. The C'eed I hired for a month in the UK gave me 60mpg overall average although driving experience was ok it was not inspiring.

 

The earlier, and even the current, Prius is not a torquey motor so quite a chunky car and so on trying to crack on, overtake, power up hills on motorways, is a painful experience as the current car only has a 1.8-Liter, 4-cylinder Aluminum DOHC 16-Valve with Variable Valve (Timing with intelligence (VVT-i), EV⁵⁵/ECO/POWER Modes; 95 hp @ 5200 rpm (71 kW @ 5200 rpm), 105 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm (142 N•m @ 3600 rpm).  This is only the same torque as my 900 cc Renault engine and at much higher revs.  The car is not much of a highway car.

 

 Was that the Cee'd displayed MPG or actual as Hyundai/Kia got heavily fined in the US for the actual cars not reaching close to their claimed MPG.  

 

Agreed driving techniques can make a huge difference to MPG.  Slow down naturally without the brakes if one can.  Do get me started on freewheeling down lon hills (even though latest DSG boxes have this function built into them).

 

Aerodynamic resistance is a cube ratio so cruising 5 mph less makes a big difference.  Find a fast transit van and sit 20 m behind it for a while.

Replies fail to go through again

1 hour ago, lol-lol said:

 

The earlier, and even the current, Prius is not a torquey motor so quite a chunky car and so on trying to crack on, overtake, power up hills on motorways, is a painful experience as the current car only has a 1.8-Liter, 4-cylinder Aluminum DOHC 16-Valve with Variable Valve (Timing with intelligence (VVT-i), EV⁵⁵/ECO/POWER Modes; 95 hp @ 5200 rpm (71 kW @ 5200 rpm), 105 lb.-ft. @ 3600 rpm (142 N•m @ 3600 rpm).  This is only the same torque as my 900 cc Renault engine and at much higher revs.  The car is not much of a highway car.

 

 Was that the Cee'd displayed MPG or actual as Hyundai/Kia got heavily fined in the US for the actual cars not reaching close to their claimed MPG.  

 

Agreed driving techniques can make a huge difference to MPG.  Slow down naturally without the brakes if one can.  Do get me started on freewheeling down lon hills (even though latest DSG boxes have this function built into them).

 

Aerodynamic resistance is a cube ratio so cruising 5 mph less makes a big difference.  Find a fast transit van and sit 20 m behind it for a while.

 

The comparative tests I was referring in a local magazine with Australian models from a couple of years back, A mid-size Toyota Camry (2.5L 4 Cylinder Hybrid), Passat diesel and locally built Holden Commodore (V6 Petrol). From memory the large Camry got 5L/100 around town, Diesel 8L/100 and Commodore 14L/100. On a long open road run the  Camry 8L/100, Commodore 8.5L/100 and Passat 4.8L/100.

 

The Cee'd consumption was actual measured. Believe it or not but the display was ever so slightly pessimistic by 1 or 2 mpg, so actual was better than display. The hire car was only 4 months old last September/October  when I hired it and added 2k miles to its odo.

Speedo was very optimistic though, but I soon figured that out.

And yes I'm fully aware that Hyundai/Kia group cheated the tests as I have owned a couple and lies were pretty well self evident as I'm a bit of a hyper-mile junky.

 

One of the things that surprised me with the release of the new consumption test formats compared to old formats was that NEITHER take the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle into the calculation parameters. Explains why SUV might struggle to meet figures attained on open roads by similarly powered estates/sedans when the rolling road figures are similar. 

 

Our major roads out of Adelaide all go down to single lane highways and they carry a lot of trucks, semis, and B-doubles and they are all doing a genuine speed limited 100kph so although the speed limit is 110kph there is little point in overtaking them because there is always a truck in front. Sitting back a safe 3 seconds from the truck in front will still give considerable aero and economy benefit and then just zip past at overtaking points where they may slow on hills.

 

The OP is looking for economical long distance motoring and the diesel Kia with exceptionally long transferable warranties are worth considering, especially compared to a VW group vehicle that has been subjected to the 'cheat fix'.

Edited 12 December, 20178 yr by Gerrycan

You wonder just how far German influence goes with Hyundai/Kia when it comes to emissions engineering.