The largest Civic Type R club forum

Established in 2002 it brings together people from all over the world to discuss their one love of Type R's.

Reviews, News & rumours relating to all things Honda.
#3711183
integraleo wrote:
Shappers wrote:
integraleo wrote:Even in standard form there are diesels with more power,more torque and better mpg than the eco boost engines.I just don't see the point.
Well for a start, if you only need a small car to do local trips around town then a diesel makes no sense whatsoever. In that instance an economical small petrol turbo makes much much more sense.

I had a 1.4TD diesel yaris from new. On short trips around town it wasn't very economical at all... and factor in the fact servicing was more expensive than the petrol model, and the additional cost of filling the thing up... then you start seeing the point.
Small car 1.4tdi polo or lupo achieves over 70mpg how many small engined petrol car that achieves that.
Quite a few now actually. :lol:
#3711221
integraleo wrote:Note I said PETROL cars,almost all of them you showed me were diesel or hybrids. 1.1 kia Rio not included.
You just proved my point all by yourself well done.
OK. Lets see shall we.........

http://www.nextgreencar.com/most-econom ... trol-cars/

Please note that the Polo's real world mpg (like most cars) is not what you've stated. FACT!

Plus the overall running costs of a small diesel are higher than that of an equivalent petrol (again that's a proven FACT).

Petrol in smaller cars makes far more financial sense. In bigger beasts however, its definitely the way forward to have diesel.
#3711288
Evostu getting his knickers in a twist again when challenged
It's almost like you don't want a friendly debate you want the whole site to agree with you all the time fact!
Anyway on that list you showed me with petrol cars achieving over 70mpg the Fiat twin air 0.9 litre turbo is the only one with more than 60hp!
And in a 3 year ownership why is diesel more expensive to own?
Service costs with oil,filter,air filter,tyres is all the same. Unless something breaks normal servicing costs should be same.
And as for 1.4tdi polo,lupo achieving over 70mpg how is it stated as a FACT that it's not doing so?
They even had one on topgear challenge and Richard Hammond got his up to 74mpg.
In any case without arguing I have mearly pointed out that diesel engined small cars are very economical. The ibiza fr 1.9 tdi that I mentioned I've driven lots as my friend bought one new about 6 years ago,he owned it for 3 years and thrashed the hell out of it and still averaged 50+ mpg out of it and with 130bhp it went like stink! He then sold it to an ex gf who is best mates with my gf and she has had it since. In 6 years not one thing has broken on it and with it now being driven more slowly than when my friend owned it she regularly averages above 60mpg all the time
When used on long runs she has achieved 70 mpg which is incredible considering how quick it is.
I'm not saying everyone should buy diesel I'm saying it's a very valid option in the small car market. Just because there is lots of hype around these new small engined petrol turbo cars does not make them the only option.
Evostu please learn to control your anger at MY opinions. Just because they differ from your own does not make them wrong,I'm merely having a discussion which is what forums are all about.
It's not a dictatorship
#3711290
I'm not angry, just pointing out that your theories are incorrect lol.

I'll say one thing to you about the Top Gear test. Those were not real world tests. Driving them at ridiculously inappropriate speeds (slowly) in places, switching off anything that uses power etc is not real world.

Diesels are more costly to service like for like, they also cost more in fuel per tank (and the small engined petrols deliver virtually the same mpg), they have items that are known to break more regularly like turbos, dpfs and dual mass flywheels, so yes they are also more problematic.

Diesels are also far less efficient in colder temperatures as they take considerably longer to warm up compared to their petrol counterparts.

Going back to the TG test, I could get over 60mpg in my BMW all the time but I'd not get anywhere on time, and I'd be cold, and my I'd be bored at the lack of entertainment.
#3711405
integraleo wrote:Even in standard form there are diesels with more power,more torque and better mpg than the eco boost engines.I just don't see the point.
Have you ever done the math?

The last couple of times we have looked at buying a a car we have looked at diesels and they didn't stack up financially. For the models we looked at the diesels were always more expensive over their lifetime than the petrol version with equivalent performance. Even with the higher tax costs, more expensive fuel (Ireland) and lower fuel economy, the petrol engined were cheaper to own over their expected lifetime because the diesels were significantly more expensive initially. You had to be talking 140K km and upwards before the diesels started to actually become cheaper.

Looking at your 2013 VW Polo options, and assuming you do 100K km before selling and do 20K km a year so own it for 5 years worth of tax: A 1.4 85PS will cost you £21,815 to own and operate while a 1.6 TDI 90Ps will cost you £22,867

People really do fool themselves that the high MPG of diesels saves them money.
#3711431
the high MPG of dervs has saved me an absolute fortune over the years. I could, of course, take extreme metrics to calculate a fixed 'variable' in order to convince myself that my petrol car was cheaper to run, but I'm not fucking stupid, I own a derv and am well aware of the savings :salut:
#3711442
cheapskate wrote:
integraleo wrote:Even in standard form there are diesels with more power,more torque and better mpg than the eco boost engines.I just don't see the point.
Have you ever done the math?

The last couple of times we have looked at buying a a car we have looked at diesels and they didn't stack up financially. For the models we looked at the diesels were always more expensive over their lifetime than the petrol version with equivalent performance. Even with the higher tax costs, more expensive fuel (Ireland) and lower fuel economy, the petrol engined were cheaper to own over their expected lifetime because the diesels were significantly more expensive initially. You had to be talking 140K km and upwards before the diesels started to actually become cheaper.

Looking at your 2013 VW Polo options, and assuming you do 100K km before selling and do 20K km a year so own it for 5 years worth of tax: A 1.4 85PS will cost you £21,815 to own and operate while a 1.6 TDI 90Ps will cost you £22,867

People really do fool themselves that the high MPG of diesels saves them money.
No he hasn't done the calculations, its evident. On smaller cars the savings on diesel just aren't as good.

On the larger sized cars like the 3 series size and above (and in mine and Karl's cases) the savings are big in comparison to their petrol counterparts.
#3711453
karl wrote:the high MPG of dervs has saved me an absolute fortune over the years. I could, of course, take extreme metrics to calculate a fixed 'variable' in order to convince myself that my petrol car was cheaper to run, but I'm not Flipping stupid, I own a derv and am well aware of the savings :salut:
Here are the figures and calculation method I used. Do please identify the 'extreme metrics':

From the VW site I chose petrol and diesel models that were within 5ps of each other. I took the combined cycle fuel economy figures as stated by VW and calcualated the the total cost of the fuel required to do 100K km. I used VW statement of the tax band to work out the total tax for each car for 5 years assuming 20K Km per year. So purchase price + fuel cost + tax = total.

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/polo-v/ ... s/overview

I got the fuel price from the BBC website:
The average price of petrol in the UK is about £1.30 a litre or £1.37 for diesel
So; the figures for the 1.4 85PS are:

Purchase price £13,520
L/100K 5.9
Fuel used 5900 L
cost per L £1.30
Total Fuel cost £7,670
Tax for 5Y £625
Total cost £21,815

For the 1.6 TDI 90Ps
£16,415
4.6
£1.37
4600 L
£6,302
150
£22,867

Where have I exaggerated or made an error?

As for matching the cars - I would have gone for an exact HP match but that wasn't possible. The acceleration times for the two cars are 11.9 sec and 11.5 respectively so they are a reasonably close performance match.

The cost savings for diesels are a myth as far as I am concerned, unless you can show me the numbers that would indicate otherwise.
#3711480
EvoStu wrote:The numbers for smaller cars don't lie at all. Its the bigger cars where the savings lie.

For instance in Karls case, the 535i vs the 535d, there is simply no way the 535i can match the diesel brother for its performance and economy.
By my calculations a 535d luxury will cost you £1,261 more over 5 years and 100K km than a 535i luxury.
#3711481
cheapskate wrote:
EvoStu wrote:The numbers for smaller cars don't lie at all. Its the bigger cars where the savings lie.

For instance in Karls case, the 535i vs the 535d, there is simply no way the 535i can match the diesel brother for its performance and economy.
By my calculations a 535d luxury will cost you £1,261 more over 5 years and 100K km than a 535i luxury.
Not a chance mate. On the motorway the 535i can't even touch 30mpg, a 535d will happily touch 45mpg all day.
#3711487
EvoStu wrote:
cheapskate wrote:
EvoStu wrote:The numbers for smaller cars don't lie at all. Its the bigger cars where the savings lie.

For instance in Karls case, the 535i vs the 535d, there is simply no way the 535i can match the diesel brother for its performance and economy.
By my calculations a 535d luxury will cost you £1,261 more over 5 years and 100K km than a 535i luxury.
Not a chance mate. On the motorway the 535i can't even touch 30mpg, a 535d will happily touch 45mpg all day.
Well BMW are liars then.
#3711501
cheapskate wrote:
karl wrote:the high MPG of dervs has saved me an absolute fortune over the years. I could, of course, take extreme metrics to calculate a fixed 'variable' in order to convince myself that my petrol car was cheaper to run, but I'm not Flipping stupid, I own a derv and am well aware of the savings :salut:
Here are the figures and calculation method I used. Do please identify the 'extreme metrics':

From the VW site I chose petrol and diesel models that were within 5ps of each other. I took the combined cycle fuel economy figures as stated by VW and calcualated the the total cost of the fuel required to do 100K km. I used VW statement of the tax band to work out the total tax for each car for 5 years assuming 20K Km per year. So purchase price + fuel cost + tax = total.

http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/polo-v/ ... s/overview

I got the fuel price from the BBC website:
The average price of petrol in the UK is about £1.30 a litre or £1.37 for diesel
So; the figures for the 1.4 85PS are:

Purchase price £13,520
L/100K 5.9
Fuel used 5900 L
cost per L £1.30
Total Fuel cost £7,670
Tax for 5Y £625
Total cost £21,815

For the 1.6 TDI 90Ps
£16,415
4.6
£1.37
4600 L
£6,302
150
£22,867

Where have I exaggerated or made an error?

As for matching the cars - I would have gone for an exact HP match but that wasn't possible. The acceleration times for the two cars are 11.9 sec and 11.5 respectively so they are a reasonably close performance match.

The cost savings for diesels are a myth as far as I am concerned, unless you can show me the numbers that would indicate otherwise.
you've deliberately chosen the more expensive 1.6 to make your calculation work, why not try it with the more evenly matched 1.2?
#3711510
cheapskate wrote:
EvoStu wrote:
cheapskate wrote:
EvoStu wrote:The numbers for smaller cars don't lie at all. Its the bigger cars where the savings lie.

For instance in Karls case, the 535i vs the 535d, there is simply no way the 535i can match the diesel brother for its performance and economy.
By my calculations a 535d luxury will cost you £1,261 more over 5 years and 100K km than a 535i luxury.
Not a chance mate. On the motorway the 535i can't even touch 30mpg, a 535d will happily touch 45mpg all day.
Well BMW are liars then.
No they aren't. I've driven both petrol and diesel back to back and the 535 petrol can't get close to the diesel in its natural habitat of the motorway, where most of these cars will spend their days.
#3711533
my average MPG has been stuck between 39.2 and 39.7 for months now, that's motorways and town driving; funny how the real world is at odds with the doomsday calculators...
FK8 Fog light protectors

pm sent