|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:20:28 GMT
|
OK, to hear the enthusiasts of diesel talk you'd think they get eleventy millionz mpg round town. Yet investigation by yours truely and use of a few diesel vehicles of late suggests this not necessarily to be the case...
Our Chrysler diesel managed 36 MPG when I checked it (mileage and full fill up). I had an Alfa 159 turbo diesel for a couple of weeks which managed about 33 MPG (same method) and a mate whos company had Golf TDis which "struggle to get more than 40 MPG In the real world regardless of what the computer says"... (although any VAG forum will tel you a "simple chip" gets you 300 BHP and 80 MPG out of one of these LOL)
Certainly the Chrysler costs us a lot more in fuel than the ol Mazda it replaced did...
A mate of my sister in law is right pished off he traded his petrol version of CarX for a TDI version of the same car and it now costs him way more to run what with diesel being more expensive....
Just wondered if anyone else has any thoughts or experiances on the diesel thing.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
Tefal
Part of things
Posts: 514
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:25:01 GMT
|
I had an 80tdi that was good on fuel but not amazing, now looking for a small engined petrol as it seems to be just as cheap
|
|
|
|
Stu_B
Posted a lot
Investing in rust!
Posts: 1,266
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:27:22 GMT
|
My only experiance of Diesel is a 1.5 106 belonging to an Ex! Slowest car evar but good MPG!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:27:58 GMT
|
my dads a cabby and does bazillions of miles, he buys deisel cars cos of lower service costs and longer life rather than them being any more economical than the petrol versions in real life.
|
|
Volvo back as my main squeeze, more boost and some interior goodies on the way.
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:28:18 GMT
|
Diesels: You're doing it wrong! Certainly those chrysler (PT Cruiser?) ones aren't the most efficient. We get an average of 55mpg from our Picasso, which is the 2.0 HDi as found in loads of other PSA bilge. That's quite a decent figure, I reckon, especially as Mrs Pog has a history of ragging the knackers off cars (though she is getting betterer). That's a figure from the onboard cleverness, not some half-arsed calcualtion on the back fof an envelope by the way (though I expect someone will be along in a minute to tell us how they get 900mpg from a 5.0 petrol V8 or something ) The old Focus rarely dipped below 50mpg either, and that was a clattery old direct injection tractor engine, not a super common-rail.... Probably boils down to how it's used, short trip? Up & down hill? Stop-start traffic? Never going to be great! From where we live you essentially have to get on t' motorway to go anywhere, so it's a 1 mile tootle to the A1, then open the taps up to 70 and cruise.... Might have something to do with it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:28:33 GMT
|
The diesel daily I'm using did 17.8MPG on the last tank when I worked it out-not great by anyone standards.
|
|
|
|
ThePollitt
Posted a lot
Fix up, look... at that car on eBay!
Posts: 4,696
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:28:47 GMT
|
In my eyes diesel is a bit of a false economy for me, or at least it is right now.
My old Vectra, while a fantastic car, only achieved 40-45mpg. Now I know that seems good, but when you look at the difference in cost between derv and petrol right now, and add in the fact that a decent petrol engine will do 35-40mpg without batting an eyelid it makes you question the reasons behind buying a derv motor, at least an older one anyway.
The onyl diesel that I have been truly blown away by is my Mum and Stepdads 2007 Astra TDi Sport. My Stepdad has had a Diesel Technologies chip fitted and I don't car what anyone say, it works. He's calculated that from a full tank with over an approx 50/50 split of motorway and town driving it has achieved 50mpg with ease. It's quite the machine. But, again, does a £15k car that does 50mpg better a £2500 petrol that gains 3-35mpg, in terms of real world economy?
It's a real swings and roundabouts thing I guess, and it's all down to the mental justification of the car owner. For me, a person who finds £2000 cars to be the stuff of dreams, diesels are the wrong way to go. But, if you're going to spend a lot (anything more than £2000 lol) on a car, than I guess it might change.
That, or I'm just talking curse word like usual! Still, you might extract something useful from my ramblings!
Chris
|
|
Last Edit: Sept 29, 2008 13:29:36 GMT by ThePollitt
|
|
rysz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,558
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:31:54 GMT
|
The hearse (02 Black mondeo tdci) is not bad, but what I find with modern diesels is that the turbo spools up at such low revs, it is almost constantly on song - this was not the case with the 306 that I briefly had and as such the economy was a bit better - smaller car I know, but the same number of litres definitely went a bit further in the 306!
When Street, Benz Boy and I went down to the Ace, it cost about £40 in fuel for the round trip - and I was not going particularly fast - tbh its much of a muchness, especially with the price differential between petrol and diesel.
It's all very pricey these days unless you are driving a shopping trolley running on lpg, so ho hum...
Rysz.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:33:53 GMT
|
Modern diesels, I'm not convinced by. My old-skool diesel citroen C15 van however, NEVER gives worse than 52 real-world MPG no matter how its driven - and often substantially better. My personal record was 61mpg from a full tank, driving very economically. However, it has the weight, structural integrity and interior comforts of a chinese takeaway carton. I think modern diesels are potentially capable of decent mpg in perfect driving conditions - conditions you are unlikely to ever find on the roads. Excessive weight due to large sizes, safety systems, comforts, soundproofing, electrically opertated ashtrays etc make it impossible to achieve the quoted figures in normal use. If I were in the market for a modern and had the choice between the two fuels, Id run petrol every time. The cost per litre difference often makes the diesel poorer value, plus the petrol has the option of LPG conversion at a later date.
|
|
1986 Panda 4x4. 1990 Metro Sport. 1999 Ford Escort estate.
|
|
MrT
Posted a lot
Just who did Mr Hitler REALLY think he was kidding?
Posts: 1,773
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:34:22 GMT
|
I've had more than a few diesels.
Our recently purchased Peugeot 206SW 2.0HDi DTurbo kicks out 90bhp, plenty of torque, and I've checked the onboard computers claims and it is giving a shade over 40mpg in daily (fairly hard driven!) use around MK, and around 55-70mpg on a run. A petrol with equivalent performance would get nowhere near those figures.
My Volvo S60 D5 auto pumped out 163bhp, but only gave 33mpg around town, and around 45-50mpg on a run. A petrol with equivalent performance would only give me low to mid 20's around town.
My old Citroen C3 1.4HDi Turbo gave 92bhp, ample performance, mid 40-'s around town and up to 75mpg around town. I couldn't get a petrol version to do anything like that!
I run a fleet of diesel vans - petrol would be a bad choice, really.
Diesels are so much nicer to drive if you've a mechanically sympathetic ear! Once you've learnt how to drive them properly, they really do drive well, and contrary to popular belief, there's not a great big wallop of torque in a really narrow rev range...
Dale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:54:39 GMT
|
some interesting feedback. Are those quoting figures quoting
1. figures calculalted from filling up and then returning to the same location to refuel and checking the mileage?
2. trusting the display on the dash?
3. estimating based on the fact its 10 miles to work and I put X amount of fuel in a week
just curious.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
MrT
Posted a lot
Just who did Mr Hitler REALLY think he was kidding?
Posts: 1,773
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:56:16 GMT
|
My figures are all worked out on a trusty calculator from miles covered and litres used at refill time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 13:56:35 GMT
|
Diesels: You're doing it wrong! Certainly those chrysler (PT Cruiser?) ones aren't the most efficient. We get an average of 55mpg from our Picasso, which is the 2.0 HDi as found in loads of other PSA bilge. That's quite a decent figure, I reckon, especially as Mrs has a history of ragging the knackers off cars (though she is getting betterer). That's a figure from the onboard cleverness, not some half-arsed calcualtion on the back fof an envelope by the way (though I expect someone will be along in a minute to tell us how they get 900mpg from a 5.0 petrol V8 or something ) The old Focus rarely dipped below 50mpg either, and that was a clattery old direct injection tractor engine, not a super common-rail.... Probably boils down to how it's used, short trip? Up & down hill? Stop-start traffic? Never going to be great! From where we live you essentially have to get on t' motorway to go anywhere, so it's a 1 mile tootle to the A1, then open the taps up to 70 and cruise.... Might have something to do with it... I would say this is accurate. It's easy to take a light petrol car, take it easy, and get good fuel economy out of it; and compare it to a curse word diesel that's being ragged about. There are lots of other diesel cars that are built for torque, and not for FE specifically. Petrol cars are definitely getting better at fuel consumption, and diesels are getting faster, but if you still take a car with a diesel engine designed with economy first and foremost, you're going to find it very hard to run a petrol car cheaper. I talk about this all too often on retro rides, but I've got figures of ~85mpg out of my peugeot 106 diesel before, without going mad "hypermiling". I use the fill up, and check the odo' method. I typically get around 500 miles for £40.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:03:32 GMT
|
My old Pug 306 TD would do around 45mpg despite my heavy right foor. The Merc diesel does 27mpg - but it is a big, heavy, inefficient-slushbox-equipped lump of a car.
Boss's MINI Cooper Diesel betters 50mpg regularly. Tells you it's doing 60mpg on the computer though, which is utter pant rot.
|
|
1986 Citroen 2CV Dolly Other things. Check out my Blog for the latest! www.hubnut.org
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:04:24 GMT
|
I'm comparing a full size family car from 1993 with a diesel "estate car" from 2003. And the Alfa was brand new (5000 KM on the clock). Neither were ragged round in. If you've driven a bus you'll know how a PT Crusier drives. Not something you "rag". Its only rated at 40 MPG by Chrysler anyway. I haven't checked what Alfa reckon for the 159 but it never went above 100 KM/h and was mostly in "relaxed" driving, and a bit of Autostrada.
if you can get much more out of the PT Cruiser than I can I'd love to see how.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
MrT
Posted a lot
Just who did Mr Hitler REALLY think he was kidding?
Posts: 1,773
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:09:28 GMT
|
if you can get much more out of the PT Cruiser than I can I'd love to see how. I can 'unbetter' that: Our '55 PT Cruiser 2.4GT petrol manual never gave more than 24mpg around MK, a steady 70-ish on a run would see returns of nearly 32mpg, and towing our 900kg caravan (we've got a 1500kg caravan now!) saw that drop to around 16mpg on a run at no more than 60mpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:16:52 GMT
|
I was warned off the 2.4 Petrol, apparently you'll be hit with some huge car tax on it next year as well.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:41:10 GMT
|
going from my own experience mpg claims from manufacturers, enthusiasts websites and the like are the biggest work of fiction since the new testament
i've had four diesel cars over what i'd consider a long enough period of time to judge "realworld" mpg and what i saw was:
- Cavalier (1700TD isuzu engine) ~43mpg - Rangerover (perkins 4236 retrofit NA diesel) ~30mpg - Rover 75 (2.0TD) ~35mpg - Landrover 110 County (2.5TD) ~23mpg
that's all over the same type of driving, mostly town & dual carriageway with a few motorway journeys thrown in.
My father currently has a 08 plate honda accord complete with tartan rug and 2 litre TD engine, his work means that he spends hours every day at 60 - 80mph on the motorways with this brand new ecofriendly diesel engine ticking over in 6th.. he gets an average of 48mpg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:41:48 GMT
|
I don't know if my experience counts, as generally I only ever drive crusty old nails...... When I had The Scrote (now-departed but fondly-remembered 1989 Escort L) its 1297cc Valencia petrol lump and 5-speed meant that it did anywhere between 48 and 52mpg on the daily grind, slightly more than that if I literally sat at 56mph slipstreaming artics. The worst I ever had was 42mpg and that was on a flat-out blast to Santa Pod and back. It was hellishly slow though. My 205 has the venerable old 1769cc non-turbo diesel which surprisingly is much quicker accelerating than the Escort was, even if the top end's about the same. The owners manual quotes 71mpg at a steady 56mph, but in reality I've not managed anywhere near that, 62mpg being the best I've managed. Having said that even thrashing it mercilessly (I managed the Master Brewer bypass at Hillingdon on the A40 to my house...92 miles..in 1 hr and 4 minutes on the way home from the RR Ace Cafe Meet back in July) I've never managed to get it above 48mpg. About 55 is the norm. So I gain about 5 miles on each gallon of fuel which is a 10% saving, offset by diesel being about 8% more expensive.....and I pay £100 a yr more to tax it. It's pennies, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sept 29, 2008 14:56:41 GMT
|
thats an interesting comparison Brian.
Basically I was questioning the automatic assumption that buying a diesel (or getting a diesel transplant) was the automatic route to huge money savings.
This, to some people is heracy.
I think I'll stick with LPG for now then.
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|