Diesels don't make sense....

[rjastra]

..... this from the manufacturer who has seen a sales boom in Australia because of its diesel cars.

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=57351&s_rid=smh:rainbowstrip:content2&pg=1&vf=0

[JohnBu]

diesels don't make sense to me either..

however the article doesn't address the fact that diesels drive much better than their non-turbo counterpart.

i.e. I'll take the diesel Golf over the Golf 2.0

but I would take the GTI over the diesel.

anyway, for you diesel owners out there, how much more maintenance does a diesel require?

[sooty]

lol..before i even read who had posted this thread, i knew who it would be :rolleyes:
As for maintenance....very little...at all...

[bornwild]

That is just the stupidest thing to say...

Diesels are performance cars on the budget :)

[dieselhead]

that's right, cheap torque :)

[USC]

then wait until your diesels get old and we`ll see which one is cheaper to fix.
In india, 95% of cars are diesels...they even have diesel swifts!!

[Wraith]

I havn't read the article above yet, but that's interesting, as just last night, I was researching the new Ford Fiesta and Focus models (the new 1.6ltr TD Fiesta sounds awesome in terms of efficiency) and came across an article which stated similar things, saying diesels will actually cost more to run 'long term' than an equivalant petrol powered variant of the same model...BUT after reading the whole article, it didn't state where/what the greater expense actually was, which left me confused :confused:

I'm assuming it has to do with maintanance and repairss or specialist care required for the diesel powerplants, but there was no specific info ???

[Wraith]

Hmmm, just read the article above and there do seem to be some things to look at and consider...

Certainly if diesel costs up to 30cents p/ltr more than petrol and a particular model of diesel car costs 3k more than the petrol equivalant, you'd want to do some quick calculations, based on your expected usage as to which would be cheaper to have - and obviously not considering anything else like power/performance/drive etc. which to be honest pretty much covers at least 75% or more of all the people out there...there only concern is cheap motoring.

True also that modern direct injection petrol turbos are getting amazing fuel burn numbers, but those vehicles usually cost alot more than your TD models...

I think all this adds up to is, if your interested in getting the best cost efficiency 'only' from any vehicle, you need to take it as a case by case vehicle comaprison, take all the numbers and do some simple math and see what turns out best for you...

[rjastra]

True also that modern direct injection petrol turbos are getting amazing fuel burn numbers, but those vehicles usually cost alot more than your TD models...


But they don't! That's the point. Compare the 1.4L TSFI (twin charger) GT Golf with the equivalent GT TDI. The petrol car is both cheaper to purchase and faster. And the economy isn't to shabby either.

The diesel boom in europe is caused by preferential taxing of diesel fuel. Manufacturers build cars to take advantage of that.

The same will happen here with the LCT. the greens 7L/100km/$75000 clause will mean manufacturers like BMW will import models to exploit that loophole.

Interesting logic by the Greens... you get a tax benefit if you are rich and buy an economical car but you dont if you aren't and buy an economical Yaris. LOL

[Wraith]

But they don't! That's the point. Compare the 1.4L TSFI (twin charger) GT Golf with the equivalent GT TDI. The petrol car is both cheaper to purchase and faster. And the economy isn't to shabby either.

The diesel boom in europe is caused by preferential taxing of diesel fuel. Manufacturers build cars to take advantage of that.

The same will happen here with the LCT. the greens 7L/100km/$75000 clause will mean manufacturers like BMW will import models to exploit that loophole.

Interesting logic by the Greens... you get a tax benefit if you are rich and buy an economical car but you dont if you aren't and buy an economical Yaris. LOL

Good points rj, I didn't realise the Golf GT was cheaper than the TD model...I like that car alot...

I was thinking more the mainstream direct injection turbo 4 pot bridgade which are all over 40k to buy...

And yes, the new LCT increase along with its stipulations is a big joke and not very well recieved obviously in the vehicle community.

[dieselhead]

Let's talk about TFSI engines in a few years, when you could find a few reaching 100,000 km+. I'm really concerned about how complex they are, with both turbo and super chargers. I mean, if that technology is so good, why is only VW promoting it?

The greens have done a good job shaving off some of the LCT. True, only a few expensive models benefit of this tax reduction, but any cut is welcome, especially when we end up with advanced engines such as BMW's 3.0 twin TD here down under. I wasn't aware there's a Yaris model that gets LCT :D

At the end of the day guys, no car makes sense. We should buy the cheapest, lightest and most economical car that can serve our needs. Diesel or petrol is really irrelevant.

USC was saying that 95% of the cars in India are Diesel. I wonder how can they afford the "exorbitant" maintenance costs so often associated with oilers?! Lat time I checked, India wasn't exactly what you'd call a rich country...

[rjastra]

Let's talk about TFSI engines in a few years, when you could find a few reaching 100,000 km+. I'm really concerned about how complex they are, with both turbo and super chargers. I mean, if that technology is so good, why is only VW promoting it?

The greens have done a good job shaving off some of the LCT. True, only a few expensive models benefit of this tax reduction, but any cut is welcome, especially when we end up with advanced engines such as BMW's 3.0 twin TD here down under. I wasn't aware there's a Yaris model that gets LCT :D

At the end of the day guys, no car makes sense. We should buy the cheapest, lightest and most economical car that can serve our needs. Diesel or petrol is really irrelevant.

USC was saying that 95% of the cars in India are Diesel. I wonder how can they afford the "exorbitant" maintenance costs so often associated with oilers?! Lat time I checked, India wasn't exactly what you'd call a rich country...

1. the twin charger is the top of the TSFI tree. There are other models with just a turbo. 1.2 and 1.4L versions. The new Golf will have both versions with economy around 6L/100km. Also, I think Opel/GM are moving this way with the new 1.4L turbo 4 cylinder.

2. What I was getting at with the LCT issue is that people buying a "prestige" car are getting a benefit due to economy (a reduced LCT rate). Yet the purchaser of a inexpensive economical car gets no tax benefit (stamp duty etc) over a gas guzzler.

3. USCs - 95% of cars in India are diesel is wrong :)

[Wraith]

Let's talk about TFSI engines in a few years, when you could find a few reaching 100,000 km+. I'm really concerned about how complex they are, with both turbo and super chargers. I mean, if that technology is so good, why is only VW promoting it?

The greens have done a good job shaving off some of the LCT. True, only a few expensive models benefit of this tax reduction, but any cut is welcome, especially when we end up with advanced engines such as BMW's 3.0 twin TD here down under. I wasn't aware there's a Yaris model that gets LCT :D

At the end of the day guys, no car makes sense. We should buy the cheapest, lightest and most economical car that can serve our needs. Diesel or petrol is really irrelevant.

USC was saying that 95% of the cars in India are Diesel. I wonder how can they afford the "exorbitant" maintenance costs so often associated with oilers?! Lat time I checked, India wasn't exactly what you'd call a rich country...

I must say, I agree with the above also...especially the 2nd last paragraph - being car enthusiasts, we are in a way our own worst enemy when it comes to car choices/purchases, well said above :)

Oh and TFSI direct injected turbo engines are just fine in terms of longevity, the Golf GT's twin charger (turbo/supercharger) set up may very well present longevity problems, but we wont know for sure at the present day...

I don't think other manufacturers will or need to resort to similar, with the numbers they're getting from turbo direct injection alone...VW/Audi are down to 7.9ltrs/100km with their 200kw/350nm TFSI in a 1415kg vehicle with AWD - not bad at all, with better things to come :)

[rjastra]

And this is what results when adding the 1.4TSFI engine with a hybrid drivetrain.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/228882/audi-a1-sportback.html

..... Yet, the maker claims a highly impressive 92g/km CO2 figure, ....

That figure is better than the Prius and Polo Bluemotion. Yet it is reported to get to 100km/h in < 8seconds (in other articles)

[Vectracious]

Let's talk about TFSI engines in a few years, when you could find a few reaching 100,000 km+. I'm really concerned about how complex they are, with both turbo and super chargers. I mean, if that technology is so good, why is only VW promoting it?


because by the time you get to 100K km's and a few years of ownership - the car will be out of warranty and you'll just have to pay to get it fixed - won't be VW's problem, it will be yours.

Cars are becoming disposable anyway - I dunno about anywhere else - but here in Melbourne, you rarely see "old" cars much anymore (and by that I mean 10+ years) - most cars you see are at the most about 5-7 years old.

Perfect example is my Dad - he bought a VK Commo brand new in 85 - and kept it for about 14 years - since then he's had 2 Berlina's and a Calais in the space of about 5 years.

Me: Why do you change your car every 2 years now?
Him: Why not?

*shrugs* - can't really argue with that can you....

[dieselhead]

OK, let's then talk TFSI:
1. anyone know how much is maintenance for it vs diesel
2. hope we all know it sips PULP only so no savings on fuel there. same goes for the recent crop of 1.4-1.6 petrol turbos. i'm not aware of diesel costing 30c more per litre than PULP.
3. fuel economy: despite what the manufacturer would declare, a petrol pushed hard or driven normally will use more juice than a diesel with the same indicated average per 100km. that's a fact, not marketing. since we agree fuel for TFSI is not cheaper than diesel, subject to power and driving style the diesel would save you some dough.
4. the sound of the damn thing! is like they're made in a Chinese toy factory, buzzy and plasticky. i'd have a diesel rattle any day instead, thanks.

[rjastra]

OK, let's then talk TFSI:
1. anyone know how much is maintenance for it vs diesel
2. hope we all know it sips PULP only so no savings on fuel there. same goes for the recent crop of 1.4-1.6 petrol turbos. i'm not aware of diesel costing 30c more per litre than PULP.
3. fuel economy: despite what the manufacturer would declare, a petrol pushed hard or driven normally will use more juice than a diesel with the same indicated average per 100km. that's a fact, not marketing. since we agree fuel for TFSI is not cheaper than diesel, subject to power and driving style the diesel would save you some dough.
4. the sound of the damn thing! is like they're made in a Chinese toy factory, buzzy and plasticky. i'd have a diesel rattle any day instead, thanks.

1. Ring up a VW stealer and ask :)
2. who said 30c/l?
3. Manufacturer? The economy figures are those supplied to government standards around the world. Any car, irrespective of fuel type, will have much worse consumption is flogged. You could provide proof of this "fact" of yours :)
4. They do? Sound like a petrol engined car to me. If the diesel rattle is what people wanted the manufacturers wouldn't try so damned hard to get rid of it :P


I tell you what... you diesel zealots are as bad as the global warming evangelists at times = hahahahaah

Its been proven in many articles and tests in AUSTRALIA that buying a diesel passenger car over the petrol equivalent makes no sense at current fuel price discrepancies and average kms driven. It doesn't even make sense for purchasers of medium sized 4wds!

If the tax breaks and subsidies diesel got in Europe and Asia were removed the development and rise of diesel car sales would dry up in an instant.

[Calibrated]

1. its a vw. therefore expensive
2.
But with the retail price of diesel costing up to 30 cents a litre more than petrol in recent months
did you not even read the article YOU posted
3. i can garauntee you, compare miss daisy/flog driving between my old turbo cali, and the cdti astra, and you'll notice a HUGE difference.

[Vectracious]

I've just looked at the RACV website's Fuel prices page

Currently in Melbourne
Unleaded: 157.9 c/L
Diesel: 159.9 c/L

Is that a mistake or have Diesel prices come down - TBH - I dont pay attention to diesel pricing when I fill up, but I thought it was significantly higher than petrol....

[Calibrated]

I've just looked at the RACV website's Fuel prices page

Currently in Melbourne
Unleaded: 157.9 c/L
Diesel: 159.9 c/L

Is that a mistake or have Diesel prices come down - TBH - I dont pay attention to diesel pricing when I fill up, but I thought it was significantly higher than petrol....
yes they have. and there was a 2c difference in QLD this morning aswell :D

ULP 149.9
Diesel 151.9

[Wraith]

The 30cents per/ltr difference was in the original posted article, not our current pricing here...

In that article, it was clearly stated though, that - that was the main thing which made diesels 'not make sense' however if the price of diesel remained on par with petrol or below as it once was, then diesels have a much better justification, despite the higher purchase cost...it also depends on travelled distance, if your a low km's traveller then again, the diesels may not end up costing you less to run than the equivalant petrol model...

That's the general jist of the article that I got from it anyways :)

[dieselhead]

According to the EPA in US, if only one third of cars and transport vehicles would be diesel in the land of the free, the daily fuel use would drop by 1.5 million barrels/day. Bare in mind the total world production is at about 82 million/day. Does THAT make any sense? :)

[Calibrated]

According to the EPA in US, if only one third of cars and transport vehicles would be diesel in the land of the free, the daily fuel use would drop by 1.5 million barrels/day. Bare in mind the total world production is at about 82 million/day. Does THAT make any sense? :)
or they could just cover the usa in a giant glass dome :D

[dieselhead]

Well, I guess the financial market collapse there will reduce CO2 emissions more than 15 Kyoto treaties ;)

[Vectracious]

According to the EPA in US, if only one third of cars and transport vehicles would be diesel in the land of the free, the daily fuel use would drop by 1.5 million barrels/day. Bare in mind the total world production is at about 82 million/day. Does THAT make any sense? :)

well there's a hole in that theory

a lot of their fleet are big heavy Pickup trucks with big guzzling V8 motors. If you compare them to current smaller/turbo efficient diesel engines (and thats probably what the EPA did as well), then the difference is going to be exaggerated.

Not saying that its not a valid point on its own merits, but you can't really use that example when discussing small efficient petrol engines compared to small efficient diesel engines.

[dieselhead]

Do you really think the yanks would scrap their SUVs and pick-ups and jump in Puntos and Polos? Common...

[Wraith]

According to the EPA in US, if only one third of cars and transport vehicles would be diesel in the land of the free, the daily fuel use would drop by 1.5 million barrels/day. Bare in mind the total world production is at about 82 million/day. Does THAT make any sense? :)

Yes it does...for the enviroment etc. etc. etc. :)

But that dosn't mean it'll directly translate to a saving in car running costs for the average person, again in relation to the discussed points in that article :)

If that would however have the effect of dropping the World fuel prices (especially diesel) then yes, but the diesel price would have to either remain on par or be below petrol pricing, for the average end user to benifit.

Not trying to pick, I can see where your leading with the above, just trying to relate it all back to the original topic to see whether that article by that VW spokesman has any merit or not... :)

[Vectracious]

Do you really think the yanks would scrap their SUVs and pick-ups and jump in Puntos and Polos? Common...

of course not - just giving my opinion on that EPA study....

Although if their petrol keeps climbing (they complain about $4/Gal - ****in whingers) - you might see the same thing that's happening here.... I mean..who would have thought a Corolla would have beaten Australia's favourite son's - Commodore and Falcon?????

[rjastra]

WA Fuelwatch...

Best Prices available from 6am today Thursday 02 October 2008
Product Metro Average
Diesel 167.8
98 RON 164.0
PULP 159.3
ULP 152.0

Sydney prices today (Thursday)
Average
Diesel 164.7, ulp 156.4
Lowest
Diesel 156.9 ulp 141.9

Of course Sydneysiders would know that Thursday is out of the normal cyclic petrol price lowpoint (mon-tues). Diesel does not have as intensive discounting.

For instance
For Wednesday in Sydney the averageprices were
Sydney ULP 144.2 Diesel 164.8

For interest sake....

Lowest price for ULP in LA (USA) = 3.39/gallon, diesel = 3.79 gallon. Or just over 10% difference.

[sooty]

We're not even talking about ULP though, in all the current motors you have to use at least 95. :rolleyes:
We get it RJ, you don't like diesels....but the crap you post that pours into these threads is almost as annoying as the diesel rattle you so hate :p

[glider]

We're not even talking about ULP though, in all the current motors you have to use at least 95. :rolleyes:
We get it RJ, you don't like diesels....but the crap you post that pours into these threads is almost as annoying as the diesel rattle you so hate :p

current prices in my suburb:

PULP
157.9

Diesel
152.9

*waits for link to performance petrol engine that runs on regular unleaded*

I'm a petrol head but I'm starting to see the sense in a oil burner, especially since I probably do 3-400km/week of 'ah fk it i feel like going for a drive'

[dieselhead]

*waits for link to performance petrol engine that runs on regular unleaded*



can I wait with you, too? :)

[Vectracious]

TBH - if they sold the CR-V in a diesel here in Aus (they do in Europe) - we'd have one right now.

I tried to convince the wife to get a Captiva Diesel - but she didnt like them - and we would have had a Tiguan TDI if the boot on them wasn't so ridiculously small.

[sooty]

can I wait with you, too? :)

*joins queue, passing popcorn down the line :p *

[bornwild]

*joins queue, passing popcorn down the line :p *

*stands in que...ripping the odd fart or two*

[carpy]

I originally started a long winded reply but just live with an Astra1.9 cdti for a while and you would understand that its a bit more than economy and cost.
These are great cars to live with day in day out. I do over 1000 klms per week with my business, sometimes more if I go to the country on weekends.
I might be old fashion but I like a car with soul a Toyota Yaris would not do it for me.
At least if you are a doubter arrange a test drive (manual with sport button ON)

[bornwild]

Yeah, people think Diesels are only good for economy.

Reason I'm buying a diesel next year is performance, I couldn't give less shit about the economy. :)

[Calibrated]

all you need is to see ain's dyno sheet, and the comments from my mechanic that my cdti is just as quick if not quicker than any G Turbo he has driven. at half the fuel consumption.

[JohnBu]

Reason I'm buying a diesel next year is performance, I couldn't give less shit about the economy. :)

if you couldn't care less about economy why do you get a diesel?

not bagging diesel, as they have its place, however you gotta be shitting me if you're saying a diesel car is better than a petrol turbo car IF fuel economy wasn't an issue.

[sooty]

if you couldn't care less about economy why do you get a diesel?

not bagging diesel, as they have its place, however you gotta be shitting me if you're saying a diesel car is better than a petrol turbo car IF fuel economy wasn't an issue.

Greenboxed diesel...147kw, 400nm
SRi-T...147kw, 262nm
Where else can you get that much torque out of a 4 potter? :)
Really that was the key thing for me, either 2.2n/a (110kw, 210nm) or 1.9 diesel (110kw, 320nm)
Give credit where it's due

[Vectracious]

Here we go again...

Havent we all had the same argument of what is better about 78 times now????

The Diesel people think they are the shit, the petrol people think they are driving tractors - can we all just agree to disagree and move on....

[sooty]

lol, i was good this time :angel:

[USC]

USC was saying that 95% of the cars in India are Diesel. I wonder how can they afford the "exorbitant" maintenance costs so often associated with oilers?! Lat time I checked, India wasn't exactly what you'd call a rich country...

Have you been to india my friend? labour is very cheap here and it costs about 1/8 of the price in australia to service your car. They have their own brand called TATA and parts are made locally....hence cheap. Most cars are small hatch`s with v2, turbo diesels (very small engines).

But if someone owns a toyota or ford diesel, they also manufacture parts locally for them...people hardly buy genuine parts here.

95% may be a bit high, but A LOT of the cars are diesels.

At most petrol stations I have been to (I have a chauffeur driven turbo diesel car:) ), they have premix fuel for 2 stroke engines (for auto rickshaws etc), a couple of diesel pumps and may be 1 petrol pump.

It is very rare to find a car in good condition here (90% are scratched like hell, have dents all over them etc).. lol...I reckon they stay nice for about a day after they leave the showroom...haha

[dieselhead]

Actually my point was hey, if diesels are so unreliable and expensive to maintain and fuel saving is not significant compared to petrol engines, how come poor people in India are using them on such a large scale? :)

[rjastra]

Greenboxed diesel...147kw, 400nm
SRi-T...147kw, 262nm
Where else can you get that much torque out of a 4 potter? :)
Really that was the key thing for me, either 2.2n/a (110kw, 210nm) or 1.9 diesel (110kw, 320nm)
Give credit where it's due

Out of a Golf GTi with a APR reflash :P Except you will also have 180kw+

[Calibrated]

Out of a Golf GTi with a APR reflash :P Except you will also have 180kw+
for $15k more, and worse consumption ;)

have you seen the figures the UK guys are getting from a little more boost and a FMIC in the cdti's?

[JohnBu]

Greenboxed diesel...147kw, 400nm
SRi-T...147kw, 262nm
Where else can you get that much torque out of a 4 potter? :)
Really that was the key thing for me, either 2.2n/a (110kw, 210nm) or 1.9 diesel (110kw, 320nm)
Give credit where it's due

Madza MPS3, evo, sti etc

Greenboxed diesel may have more torque than a reflashed SRi-T, but its still slower :)

As I said, i'm not dissing diesels but dissing the statement one would choose diesel if fuel economy was not an issue.

[sooty]

Greenboxed diesel may have more torque than a reflashed SRi-T, but its still slower :)


Who says...:cool: :confused:

[sooty]

Out of a Golf GTi with a APR reflash :P Except you will also have 180kw+

For a lot cheaper you can have Regal tuned CDTi with 180kw, 530nm...:cool:

[JohnBu]

Actually my point was hey, if diesels are so unreliable and expensive to maintain and fuel saving is not significant compared to petrol engines, how come poor people in India are using them on such a large scale? :)

as USC said, cheap labour.

anyway, i'm interested to know are the service intervals for the CDTi the same as an SRiT.

Are certain parts more frequently replaced/ costly in a diesel.


Who says...:cool: :confused:

Me. I hear all this torque about torque, yet I'm not provided any real life performance figures, 0-100, 0-400 etc.

[sooty]

as USC said, cheap labour.

anyway, i'm interested to know are the service intervals for the CDTi the same as an SRiT.

Are certain parts more frequently replaced/ costly in a diesel.



Me. I hear all this torque about torque, yet I'm not provided any real life performance figures, 0-100, 0-400 etc.

Service intervals are every 15,000, like the petrol i think, would have to go out to the car to check what has to be changed and it's raining so i can't be bothered :D

And because you don't hear about them, you just assume they're slower?:confused: I have no idea what an SRi-T runs, but a bone stock CDTi with just the greenbox ran a 15.1 in the UK...:confused: [0-400 for all those smartasses who were gonna say that's how long it took to get to 100 :p ]

[Calibrated]

as USC said, cheap labour.

anyway, i'm interested to know are the service intervals for the CDTi the same as an SRiT.

Are certain parts more frequently replaced/ costly in a diesel.



Me. I hear all this torque about torque, yet I'm not provided any real life performance figures, 0-100, 0-400 etc.
every 15 000km.

cam belt change is only at 150k
mine just came back from 60k service, and was 100%. only changed filters because they were recommended to, but they were still fine.

and my mechanic reckons my cdti is quicker than an SRi-T

and he's driven lots of them

[JohnBu]

When looking at Golfs, the service cost for the diesels were significantly higher than petrol version.

Perhaps the are more equal for Holdens.




And because you don't hear about them, you just assume they're slower?:confused: I have no idea what an SRi-T runs, but a bone stock CDTi with just the greenbox ran a 15.1 in the UK...:confused: [0-400 for all those smartasses who were gonna say that's how long it took to get to 100 :p ]

i'm not ignorant and do know there are diesels that perform very well, Golf GT, BMW 3/5 series with the 3.0L twin turbo diesels.

Now, I will also assume you're not ignorant but you do know that a stock SRiT will run 15.1 from the factory (with no reflash).



and my mechanic reckons my cdti is quicker than an SRi-T

and he's driven lots of them

I'm not going to debate what someone else has said, but I know for a fact a car with more torque will feel faster than car with less torque, even if they perform equally.

end of the day, in reality this is what happens

- a stock diesel will be slower than a stock petrol turbo..
- a modified diesel may be faster than a stock petrol turbo..
- a modified diesel will be slower than a modified petrol turbo..

prove me wrong and i will eat my words (and suck in a lungful of that nice sooty exhaust flumes from a diesel :P).

having said that, when petrol/diesel hits $3.00 per litre, I will more than likely have a modified diesel, not because i prefer it over a petrol turbo, but because it's faster than a 1.4L petrol non-turbo that cost the same to run.

[sooty]

Now, I will also assume you're not ignorant but you do know that a stock SRiT will run 15.1 from the factory (with no reflash).


lol didn't actually know, never took any interest in researching SRi-T times, but was that for a G or an H as the H's are heavier yeah?

Just some food for thought, if a car with more torque feels faster...don't you get the same kicks with a more licence friendly result :)

Never said that petrol turbos aren't good, having been in some of the cars tuned by my mates dad, they are AMAZING, just get sick of the old oilers not getting merit where it's due, they're more than just a truck motor :p

EDIT: just for those who are curious. Stock, the CDTi runs 1.5bar of boost, that's 21.75 psi!!! :eek: and you can put them up to 28 or 29 :eek: lol...well i thought it was interesting...:p

[JohnBu]

anyway I hope I didn't offend anyone... but it looks like we're agreeing on some facts here.

If you read carefully, I'd never said that diesels aren't good, but I prefer petrol overall (at the current fuel price)

i'm unsure of how the H performs, it's heavier than the G, but has closer ratios (6sp vs 5sp).

you may be correct, you will get more kicks out a diesel that does 80-120 in the same time a petrol does 80-120 and be more license friendly. That, and the fact the speed camera cannot identify your number plate behind that black smoke.. haha

Horsepower or KW is more important when performance is your goal, but you feel torque alot more than HP. Rotaries have very little torque but are extremely fast.

Having said that, generally a good engine with high HP also has fairly good torque- i.e. BMW 3L Inline 6s, with and without turbos.

I've driven cars with fairly high HP but ****all torque such as the RX8 and S2000.

while they are both capable of low 6s (0-100) and 14s (400m), they feel alot slower than say an 350z which performs the same times, but because they have more torque feels so much faster.

also a car with more torque is more flexible throughout the rev range- however this is where gearing comes into play.

to me, both power and torque are of importance, hence, why I'm partial to petrol turbo.

[sooty]

anyway I hope I didn't offend anyone... but it looks like we're agreeing on some facts here.

If you read carefully, I'd never said that diesels aren't good, but I prefer petrol overall (at the current fuel price)

i'm unsure of how the H performs, it's heavier than the G, but has closer ratios (6sp vs 5sp).

you may be correct, you will get more kicks out a diesel that does 80-120 in the same time a petrol does 80-120 and be more license friendly. That, and the fact the speed camera cannot identify your number plate behind that black smoke.. haha

Horsepower or KW is more important when performance is your goal, but you feel torque alot more than HP. Rotaries have very little torque but are extremely fast.

Having said that, generally a good engine with high HP also has fairly good torque- i.e. BMW 3L Inline 6s, with and without turbos.

I've driven cars with fairly high HP but ****all torque such as the RX8 and S2000.

while they are both capable of low 6s (0-100) and 14s (400m), they feel alot slower than say an 350z which performs the same times, but because they have more torque feels so much faster.

also a car with more torque is more flexible throughout the rev range- however this is where gearing comes into play.

to me, both power and torque are of importance, hence, why I'm partial to petrol turbo.

good summary ;)
Everyone has their reasons for buying what they do. As long as you're happy with what you've got and enjoy it, who cares :D

[glider]

That, and the fact the speed camera cannot identify your number plate behind that black smoke.. haha


that gives me an idea, i wonder if a smoke machine is illegal on a car? oooh no speed camera *deploys smoke screen* ;) I spose it wouldn't be or diesels wouldn't be allowed on the road?

[sooty]

Just because every time i floor it it looks like someone has started a bushfire, doesn't mean they smoke :D

[poita]

wonder if the insigina will be a diesel at all?

im thinkin the next vehicle will be an oiler too, been toyin with the idea for a while.

[sooty]

wonder if the insigina will be a diesel at all?

im thinkin the next vehicle will be an oiler too, been toyin with the idea for a while.
http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2008/09/opel-insignia-gets-two-new-turbo.html
but whether they bring that variant to Aus at all is a big ?

[bornwild]

The stock CDTi is less than .5s slower than the SRi-T to 100kph....a greenboxed diesel rips the SRi-T apart and reaches the Golf GTi performance levels.....a properly tuned diesel with diff turbo etc. will be kicking some serious arse(VXR level).

So yeah, knowledge is key :)

[bornwild]

that gives me an idea, i wonder if a smoke machine is illegal on a car? oooh no speed camera *deploys smoke screen* ;) I spose it wouldn't be or diesels wouldn't be allowed on the road?

Dude I could say the same about petrol cars...but wait, oh noes...it's the 21st century :)

[digifish]

Out of a Golf GTi with a APR reflash :P Except you will also have 180kw+

OK and how much is the Golf vs CDTi? ~$10,000 more expensive.

...diesel's are indeed performance bargains and the grunt is in a RPM range where you can experience it all day and stay legal.

digifish

[rjastra]

reality check here Bornwild.

These are figure from Evo.

Golf GTi 0-60mph 6.7 sec
Vauxhaul Astra SRit 7.1 sec
Astra CDTI 8.3 sec
Astra low blow Sri petrol 8.1sec

I dont see the diesel Astra anywhere near the Golf or SRiT.

Only the BMW 123d is competitive and its WRX STi money :)


OK and how much is the Golf vs CDTi? ~$10,000 more expensive.
...diesel's are indeed performance bargains and the grunt is in a RPM range where you can experience it all day and stay legal.


Nothing like feeling the urge accelerating from 30 to 60km/h - gets me all excited ;)
The short rev range of the diesel is balanced by much wider/taller gearing :)

The only hothatch in Australia with a turbo petrol/diesel sports equivalent is the Renault Megane Sport 225 or 175dCi. Similar sports (think Golf Gti) specs and the price is remarkably similar. The Dci is a couple of thousand more expensive. And both are Golf Gti priced.

If Holden had a sports astra diesel it would be the same price or more expensive than a Astra Srit.

[GreyRex]

It's funny how people try to defend (and sometimes attempt to convince) other people that they choice they made was right going diesel against petrol. I guess it's natural; for most of us here our choice was a practical/financial AND emotional one

Unlike a couple of people here, I can see the pros and cons of both

For me (comparing an SRi-T to a CDTi) I didn't want:
a) A five door
b) The smoke
c) The clatter at idle - I got enough shit from people I knew driving a Barina SRi previously, I didn't want to start defending the fact I drove something that sounded like a truck

Fuel consumption didn't come into it, as i only do about 200kms a week

Unfortunately my dyno run didn't work properly with the flash im running, but when I properly had a go against a new BMW X5 4.8L recently (which does 0 - 100 in AROUND 6.5 secs) and pulled ahead... that's good enough for me

What will my next car be? No idea... probably another Turbo petrol. But i say that now... time will tell

[Calibrated]

i've had a short highway run against a golf 5 gti. and lets just say i left him in my smoke.

[dieselhead]

reality check here Bornwild.

These are figure from Evo.

Golf GTi 0-60mph 6.7 sec
Vauxhaul Astra SRit 7.1 sec
Astra CDTI 8.3 sec
Astra low blow Sri petrol 8.1sec

I dont see the diesel Astra anywhere near the Golf or SRiT.

Only the BMW 123d is competitive and its WRX STi money

Evo? Can I have a link? Interesting how 0-60mph times are mixed with 0-100km/h :)
The SRiT is a 7.4 seconds car according to Holden, who also indicates an average of 9.7 l/100km. Sure, you can go ahead and tune the shit out of that engine and shave a few more tenths, but what would that do to your wallet at the pump?

I got 7.4 seconds to 100km/h in mine, timing with a Beltronics accelerometer. Unfortunately there's no drag strip here in Adelaide to do some runs in ideal conditions, without fearing for my licence... My average fuel consumption in daily use (read belting it with sport on permanently) over the last 20-30 thousand km is 6.5 l/100km. Tuning does not seem to affect economy in any way.

For your info, the GTI needs 7.1 seconds to get to 100 km/h. I'm sure a tuned CDTi with a FMIC would easily get there. Too bad I couldn't source a FMIC to fit my oiler yet...

As you can see, this engine has the same level of performance as a 2.0 turbo petrol with a $700 tuning box. Good enough for me and for many others who can enjoy driving every day without ever being afraid to let their right foot play.

Getting back on the topic now, I will say that diesel for any car smaller than an Astra does not make sense. I think a petrol engine on a 1,100kg car can be very economical indeed. Especially if you're after cheap transport, there's no reason to buy a very small diesel when that would only save you pennies every 100km while the car would cost a few thousands more. Can't see the point, really. At the other end of the scale, when we talk 4X4 monsters, I hope we all agree that diesel wins hads down with its torque and fuel economy, far superior to the petrol versions.
So there you have it, diesel makes a lot of sense sometimes while some other times makes no sense at all, being rather a marketing gimmick. Who needs a diesel Mini, Corsa, Fiesta or Punto? I love my diesel, but if my next car will be smaller than the Astra I'll switch to petrol. On the other hand, if I would have to chose again, like I did almost two years ago, between SRi T and the CDTi, I'd get the oiler again without a blink. And when you think the Astra I will come with a twin turbo diesel with 145 kW and 400 Nm stock...

[digifish]

Getting back on the topic now, I will say that diesel for any car smaller than an Astra does not make sense.

I am not sure I follow your logic. You have two options -

1. Put CDTi engine in the Corsa, and you would have something that would be a lot of fun. You could trade the lower weight against some slightly taller gears and get some very fast 0-100 times.

2. Put a smaller diesel tuned for economy and get 3.2 l/ 100 or something and have a car that is still pleasant to drive.

...and besides, Europe is full of small diesels (Corsa, Polo, Panda, Mini, 500 etc).

http://digiads.com.au/car-news/latest-VAUXHALL-news/2008_Vauxhall_Corsa_SRi_CDTi_Diesel_200710.html

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/202897/vauxhall_corsa.html = 3.86l/100

digifish

[dieselhead]

Sorry, I should have explained better perhaps... A smaller car with a 1.9 CDTi would be bloody fast in straight line, but would it handle? I'm afraid this engine is way too heavy for that class. On the other hand a smaller diesel engine, while economical, would make a pretty gutless car. What would you have, a 1.4 petrol turbo or the 1.3 CDTi in a Punto? I'd go for petrol there.

[cbrmale]

This all started with a link to an article by a well-known European car maker who builds a lot of diesel-engined cars. Having been to Europe many times myself, I know the one and only reason that there are such high sales of diesel-engined cars in Europe is that they are cheaper to run on a cent-per-kilometer basis. They (the Europeans) don't get emotional about 0-100km times or any of that rubbish, it's all about running costs. Most European diesels are small-capacity cars of moderate performance, I had a Peugeot 107 (about Barina XC-size) turbo-diesel hire car on my most recent foray to France. It was torquey and easy to drive, but the tractor-like noise drove me up the wall after a while.

I think we'll all agree to disagree here, except to make the point that if Europeans can afford it, they generally prefer petrol-engined cars because they are smoother and more refined. Most of the members of this forum who have petrol-engined Astras, myself included, prefer our petrol engines because they are smoother and more refined.

The lifetime maintenance costs come into the equation when one considers particulate filters, water separators (in some but not all) and so on. For many petrol-engined cars, they main additional routine maintenance cost is sparkplug replacement, which is relatively low-cost (the 2.2 has a 120,000 replacement interval).

In terms of performance, my understanding is the CDTi 1.9 engines for Australia are de-tuned compared to what's available for Europe, on account of our poorer quality fuel. As a result, the stock CDTi 0-100km/h time in Australia is in the high 8 second range (I think about 8.9 secs), which about the same as a stock 2.2 (like mine). The turbo petrol is a lot quicker than both.

My driving style was developed on high performance motorcycles, and this shows today. I don't like cars that understeer, because motorcycles are always oversteer on the limit. I don't like engines that don't rev out, because to go faster on a motorcycle you rev the engine harder. I like the 2.2 because to go faster, say to climb a steep hill or pass a b-double on a two-lane road, you rev it. It's quite simple, rev it harder and it goes faster. For me, the two things that worked against the Astra diesel I had for a two days was the noise and vibration, and the need to adapt a driving style honed over three decades. Rev the diesel Astra and it goes slower, relatively speaking. I couldn't handle that, and I don't think I ever would.

[digifish]

...my understanding is the CDTi 1.9 engines for Australia are de-tuned compared to what's available for Europe, on account of our poorer quality fuel.

...the two things that worked against the Astra diesel I had for a two days was the noise and vibration, and the need to adapt a driving style honed over three decades.

Your understanding about the state of tune is not correct. The Australian CDTi has the same output as it's EU counterparts.

About the driving style, by the time you are pulling more than 4000 rpm in 3rd gear you are already way over the speed limit. Hills are a CDTi specialty, you just put you foot down and it accelerates up any hill.

digifish

[bornwild]

Audi TDi won LeMans with Peugeot HDi right behind...full stop :p

[carpy]

cbrmale, quote.

In terms of performance, my understanding is the CDTi 1.9 engines for Australia are de-tuned compared to what's available for Europe, on account of our poorer quality fuel. .

My driving style was developed on high performance motorcycles, and this shows today.

1. Your understanding = urban myth

2. What has your driving style got do with the original thread? Honed over 3 decades ! (lol)

3. Dont hold your breath expecting a chain drive 2.2 lump to go 120,000 klm's without work.

[cbrmale]

Your understanding about the state of tune is not correct. The Australian CDTi has the same output as it's EU counterparts.

About the driving style, by the time you are pulling more than 4000 rpm in 3rd gear you are already way over the speed limit. Hills are a CDTi specialty, you just put you foot down and it accelerates up any hill.

digifish

It is correct, the Australian CDTi has the same peak power and torque as European versions, but it develops its power and torque over a slightly narrower engine rev band, and this is why it's performance is less. As far as the general narrowness of the effective engine power band goes (turbo lag at low revs and a noticeable drop in performance beyond mid-range revs), this is something I don't like and doesn't suit the way I drive.

In regards to the Audis and Peugeots at Le Mans, le vingt-quatre heurs du Mans is not going through a shiny patch at the moment. What was going to beat the works teams, the low-budget Pescarolo team (entering chassis based on the Courage-Hart of the early 2000's)? Le Mans is uniquely run to fuel consumption regulations, and therefore suits diesel-powered cars which have to make less pit stops. Even then, in 2006 the Pescarolos actually gave the Audis a bigger run for their money than they had any right to, and were surprisingly close (3rd and 4th) last year as well.

[cbrmale]

cbrmale, quote.

In terms of performance, my understanding is the CDTi 1.9 engines for Australia are de-tuned compared to what's available for Europe, on account of our poorer quality fuel. .

My driving style was developed on high performance motorcycles, and this shows today.

1. Your understanding = urban myth

2. What has your driving style got do with the original thread? Honed over 3 decades ! (lol)

3. Dont hold your breath expecting a chain drive 2.2 lump to go 120,000 klm's without work.

Come on now, using derogatory terms about the 2.2 is rather childish and immature. The all-alloy 2.2 direct is quite an advanced engine, and chain driven camshafts give it a number of mechanical advantages. This is why Opel changed some of their engines from belt to chain-driven camshafts a few years ago, including the 1.4 that was fitted to the later model XC Barinas. The CDTi engine, of course, is purchased from Fiat. There are a number of mechanical issues with this engine, some serious, and to find out what they are you are invited to go to the Astra Owners Network (a UK site).

I am not aware of any current issues with the 2.2, although when it was first introduced there were some problems with an undersized oil gallery feeding the camshaft chain tensioner. That problem has long been resolved.

My understanding of the state of tune of the 1.9 comes from Holden when I was doing research on whether or not I was going to buy an Astra. This is borne out by Australian road tests, which have always had the Australian diesel Astra consistently slower than in Europe and the UK.

At the end of the day, it's what you prefer. There is still no economic advantage to running a diesel-powered car in Australia, because the better fuel economy is offset by the higher price of fuel, the car itself being some thousands of dollars dearer, and having higher maintenance requirements. And the petrol 1.8 and especially the superceded 2.2 are much smoother, quieter and more refined, which for some of us means a lot. The turbo, of course, is also smoother, quieter and more refined as well as being faster too.

I have recently returned from holiday where I had a Lancer hire car for more than a week. I have driven my 2.2 for the first time today, and even though I have had it for almost 18 months I am still amazed by the almost total lack of mechanical noise. Radio off, accelerating normally, and it's total silence. It's amazing, eerie almost, and very relaxing.

[sooty]

bahahahahahaha......
ahahahahahaha.......
:p:D :p :D :clap:

[dieselhead]

I have recently returned from holiday where I had a Lancer hire car for more than a week. I have driven my 2.2 for the first time today, and even though I have had it for almost 18 months I am still amazed by the almost total lack of mechanical noise. Radio off, accelerating normally, and it's total silence. It's amazing, eerie almost, and very relaxing.

...and frustratingly slow. :) The same testers you were talking about above said the 2.2 engine, while a bit more potent than the old 1.8, still lacks in power. Stop comparing the 1.9 CDTi with your engine, they're in totally different league, really.

[bornwild]

The 1.9CDTi we get in the Manual here is exactly the same as the unit in EU...:)

[Black Nugget]

just give it up cbr you make perfectly rational well educated comments but will be shot down by diesel fanboyism

everyone is happy with their cars but all of us must accept the negatives as well as the positives of their own cars

no car is perfect and the variety of cars makes this site interesting but perhaps a bit of understanding and acceptance of fair well educated points would not go astray

[USC]

Actually my point was hey, if diesels are so unreliable and expensive to maintain and fuel saving is not significant compared to petrol engines, how come poor people in India are using them on such a large scale? :)

they are not unreliable...diesel cost way less than petrol in india :)
diesel also offer more kms and more torque...which they need a lot here...they dont go fast but carry a LOT of people...;)

[bornwild]

black nugget, cbr did not make too many educated comments...just assumptions and stereotypes

[cbrmale]

just give it up cbr you make perfectly rational well educated comments but will be shot down by diesel fanboyism

everyone is happy with their cars but all of us must accept the negatives as well as the positives of their own cars

no car is perfect and the variety of cars makes this site interesting but perhaps a bit of understanding and acceptance of fair well educated points would not go astray

...which was my point in my first post, until the engine in my car was described as a 'lump' which wouldn't run 120,000km (talk about getting emotional)! The 2.2 surprised me when I first drove the car, because it was better than I expected. I was impressed by the solid performance coupled with extraordinary refinement, and while not super-quick, it is significantly more torquey than the small capacity 1.8. You can put four adults on board, a load of luggage in the boot, and there's little noticeable drop in performance. The latest 1.8 (I test drove one) feels sluggish by comparison, in normal driving at least, although I suspect if you drove both to the redline all the time the difference in performance would be less.

In terms of, um, India, diesel fuel is government subsidised and therefore cheaper. Diesel cars in India are generally not turbocharged, and therefore excruciatingly slow. Diesel engines will run more kilometers, because petrol is amazingly effective at washing oil from moving metallic parts like pistons against the cylinder bore. Very important in a poor country but a moot point for me. I typically trade my cars at 100,000km or so, at which point the engine should run another 100,000 before needing major repairs.

Some Astra diesel performance stats:

http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=121099


http://www.um.co.za/specifications/opel_astra_gtc_1_9_cdti_(2006).aspx

http://www.carsplusplus.com/specs2007/opel_astra_gtc_19_cdti.php

The 8.9 secs 0-100 is as published by General Motors Europe.

[Vectracious]

cbrmale - I really need to ask - what is the nature of your relationship with the 2.2 engine? I'm asking because you seem to be infatuated with it in a big way - which is kind of scary.

I mean - having a go at carpy for calling it a "lump" and saying he is being childish and immature for using "derogatory terms" toward this engine.... well quite frankly - it's weird.

[carpy]

The problem is that these threads are always started by someone trying to suggest that we've all wasted our money buying diesel vehicles they never seem to begin by someone decrying petrol vehicles. We naturally get defensive to suggestions that we have made a bad choice.
Comments such as "honed my driving skills over three decades" Is that supposed to make others feel inferior and not be able to have their opinions taken seriously?
I am older and have been driving longer than probably every poster on this site but I fail to see what it has to do with liking a particular car.
I still own a Vectra and an XC barina and still drive them occasionally so I'm not totally biased
I suppose if we believe all the negative comment we better trade our diesels in on a 2.2 Astra SRI, oh sorry they dont make them anymore but you can get a 1.8 power house.

[cbrmale]

The problem is that these threads are always started by someone trying to suggest that we've all wasted our money buying diesel vehicles they never seem to begin by someone decrying petrol vehicles. We naturally get defensive to suggestions that we have made a bad choice.
Comments such as "honed my driving skills over three decades" Is that supposed to make others feel inferior and not be able to have their opinions taken seriously?
I am older and have been driving longer than probably every poster on this site but I fail to see what it has to do with liking a particular car.
I still own a Vectra and an XC barina and still drive them occasionally so I'm not totally biased
I suppose if we believe all the negative comment we better trade our diesels in on a 2.2 Astra SRI, oh sorry they dont make them anymore but you can get a 1.8 power house.

At the moment, the only version of the hatch with more performance than the 1.8 powerhouse is the diesel, and to broaden the diesel's appeal I believe Holden have made it an option on the CDX, so if one wished they can some of the nice things like climate control and leather seats (although it would end up being a very expensive Astra).

NRMA have just done a two-issue coverage on diesel powered cars, including the Astra, and their summation was that a diesel engine is a waste of money for small to medium sized cars, but makes sense for large cars and SUVs.

When I buy a car, any car, I look at its utility value as well as things like performance, comfort, safety, handling and so on. The Astra is a budget-priced European car, but it didn't appeal to me on the basis of the lacklustre performance of the 1.8. Then I spotted the 2.2 was available, albeit in the top of the range sports model, and I figured the extra performance from the extra capacity should make it a decent car for my semi-regular drives on rural roads. But I really don't care what technology is under the bonnet as long as it does the job I want it to do.

I didn't get a chance to test drive the 2.2 until I picked mine up, but early road tests indicated it was a good thing. It has proven to be so: with solid performance, good fuel economy and extraordinary refinement.

I didn't consider the diesel Astra then, and I wouldn't consider one now, mostly on the basis of price, but also on the basis of it's refinement. Why buy an diesel Astra at some thousands of dollars more than, say, a competitive petrol-engined car like the Mazda3 2.3? I am not going to save much in running costs given the price differential of diesel fuel, so the equation doesn't make economic sense to me.

As I said, I don't car what technology is under the bonnet, as long as it does the job I want it to do. Those who put it the other way around (the technology is more important than the car), are putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

I apologise for my remarks on three decades, they aren't meant to make people feel inferior. My driving style was set by some hundreds of thousands of kilometres on high-performance road motorcyles, some motorcycle racing (production bike and a grand-prix TZ350), and various cars of the late seventies and early eighties onwards. I prefer oversteer to understeer, and the Astra suits me well in this regard, and I prefer revs to not revs. Anyone who has ridden a TZ350 around Mount Panorama will relate to this - imagine deliberately slipping the clutch in second gear on the hilly bits to keep the revs in the power band. We wouldn't use first gear on the move, of course, because that would be instant front wheel in the air. My follow up RD350LC road bike was similar to the TZ, also required deliberately slipping the clutch in second at times to keep the revs between 6,000 and 9,000.

[CNBLU]

wow:eek:

[digifish]

I didn't consider the diesel Astra then, and I wouldn't consider one now, mostly on the basis of price, but also on the basis of it's refinement. Why buy an diesel Astra at some thousands of dollars more than, say, a competitive petrol-engined car like the Mazda3 2.3? I am not going to save much in running costs given the price differential of diesel fuel, so the equation doesn't make economic sense to me.

As I said, I don't car what technology is under the bonnet, as long as it does the job I want it to do. Those who put it the other way around (the technology is more important than the car), are putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

I apologise for my remarks on three decades, they aren't meant to make people feel inferior.

Didn't make me feel inferior, you simply used a set of different criteria choosing a car to me.

When I went for the CDTi I was shopping in VW 2.0 TDI and GTI price backet and after driving the CDTi changed my mind. Your refinement criteria is irrelevant to me (which I assume is all about engine vibration at idle?). I like the diesel sound and vibrations, they give the car a personality and sense of diesel solidity (all subjective I know). I was also discovering that low-rev torque was much better suited to every-day driving, even the GTI felt sluggish around town compared to either the TDI or CDTi.

So I purchased the CDTi in comparison to the VW competition, I thought it was a better drive (than the 2.0 TDI) and compared to the GTI, was almost as much fun on the open road and more fun around town. So there was no contest, I went with the car that was 90-110% of the VW experience for 75%-80% the price. That along with the knowledge that Holden dealers are everywhere (I got tired of paying $600-900 for an oil & filter change at the VW dealer on my Passat). Actually the Passat was a case of the reverse, my wife was looking for something with a smooth ride (she one owned a jaguar XJ6 and was looking for that feeling :) ), we rejected competion 15K either side because they were too harsh. Passat won.

All this means I buy cars on the driving experience in the price-range I can afford. It didn't matter to me I could get a 1.8 Astra for 5-8?K less. It wasn't the driving experience I was after. Indeed, all this is a bit like wine tasting. You should simply taste all the wines in your price range (prefferably blind) and buy the one you like the most. Same with cars, although the dealers take a dim view of you driving the demo blind-folded :)

I don't understand in reviews why the magazines all clump them into 'categories' and make comparisons with a ruler & spreadsheet. It makes no sense to say we are tasking $40 wines, so don't put any $10 in the taste session...since we have fallen into this trap with cars, it seems to me we have fallen into the clutches of the marketing departments at the auto manufacturers, they want you to shop by category...not by experience.

digifish

[poita]

so much decision making for a car.
we go the mazda cause the wife wanted one.
simple as :)

[digifish]

so much decision making for a car.
we go the mazda cause the wife wanted one.
simple as :)

Yup, the power of marketing, and nice design - Mazda have been great at that over the last 20 years.

...different people = different criteria. All criteria are valid if you are happy. I just don't get this comparison of an CDTi to the 1.8 petrol, purely from a purchase price perspective?

More powerful (bigger engine) versions of petrol cars have always cost 3~8K more. Why don't people see the diesel as a more powerful car?

I didn't buy the CDTi to save money at the bowser! :P

[Huhness]

I'd buy a Diesel any day before I'd buy any of these stupid hybrid cars they will be pushing on us all in 2 years!..

[poita]

I'd buy a Diesel any day before I'd buy any of these stupid hybrid cars they will be pushing on us all in 2 years!..

for sure. lady who works with my wife has a prius, i laugh everytime i see. pos

and digi you are right. i dont mind though, they are great cars.

[digifish]

I'd buy a Diesel any day before I'd buy any of these stupid hybrid cars they will be pushing on us all in 2 years!..

You are making a good point. However I would think before buying any new car in the next 2 years, and very hard in the next 5.

When good all-electric vehicles hit the market they will be cheap, cheap to run and kill the 2n'd hand value of internal-combustion cars IMO.

digifish

[carpy]

Digfish,exactly the same for me. I was going for VW and drove GTI , 2.0 FSI and Diesel, was happiest with diesel but out of loyalty to Opel products (allready owned 2) I test drove the CDTI, within 500 metres I was hooked.
As with most niche cars you have to get bums on seats not just read press reviews.
As this is a business vehicle the GST was refundable and with haggling I got some extras thrown in and it ended up being around $28,000 on the road, a bargain!

[cbrmale]

Digfish,exactly the same for me. I was going for VW and drove GTI , 2.0 FSI and Diesel, was happiest with diesel but out of loyalty to Opel products (allready owned 2) I test drove the CDTI, within 500 metres I was hooked.
As with most niche cars you have to get bums on seats not just read press reviews.
As this is a business vehicle the GST was refundable and with haggling I got some extras thrown in and it ended up being around $28,000 on the road, a bargain!

If anyone doesn't get a discount on a new car, especially the more expensive models, they aren't trying. My SRi automatic, which was dearer than a diesel manual, cost me about $29,000 on the road.

I was interested in the Astra because my wife has an XC Barina, and I was impressed by its ride-handling balance compared to other small cars. I was also impressed by its impressive safety rating, and its reasonable price. I didn't look at anything else because the dealer offered the price above, the same dealer who knocked quite a bit off the retail of the Barina.

[mintaka]

Diesel Maintenance - Old Myth, modern reality.

I've been in the diesel maintenance game my entire working life. Both with heavy and light vehicles.

The major area of difference when maintaining a diesel engine vs a petrol one used to be the injection pump. In all pre common rail/pump jet engines, this was the most complex thing on a diesel. It had the dual role of bringing the fuel up to a high enough pressure to inject into the cylinder and meter the fuel precisely at just the right time.

This is VERY hard to do with a pure mechanical pump. It required the brute force of the pressure but had many adjustment areas with delicate valves, springs etc. All of this was then packaged into a until that was bolted to engine block that shock, vibrated in a truck or car that bounced and thumped down the road.

The upshot of all of this was that mechanical diesel pumps where mongrels of things to keep an optimal timing. Also, because of the limited nature of mechanical pumps, you had a very limited timing map that you could apply to the thing.

This all leads to mechanical pumps needing constant adjustment and short maintenance cycles, especially if you want them to retain performance and economy.

Now that's diesels up to about 2000 or so. From around that year on, the whole thing changed. First in cars and now increasingly in trucks, common rail (or in VW's case pumpe-duse) systems have come to domenate.

The great thing about common rail it that it relives the mechanical pump of the timing and fuel metering duties that so bediviled the earlier systems. All of that is now done by the computer and the injectors. The pump can now be a simple high pressure pump. With no timing or metering there is nothing to adjust and nothing to go / ware / vibrated / knocked out of alinement.

The injectors are long life units that are continually adjuted by the computer. Nothing really to adjust there. And the computer has much greater flexibility in terms of timing and metering of fuel. Combine it with the mass air senor, and you get a system that knows exactly how much fuel should be injected at any one moment and will only inject that much, no more. Result - the clean, almost smoke free, economic and powerful diesels you can buy today.

Now here's the kicker. Because of the above, a diesel car is acctually a little cheaper to maintain that a petrol car (no spark plugs, no throttle body adjustments, etc)

In fact, you have little to do on a common rail, other than keeping the fuel filters and air fillters clean and replaced as per the manual (good advice weather you're driving petrols or diesels)

So, yes diesels USED to be more expensive to maintian, but that changed a long time ago.

BUT some *&^&^^&**^&^ manufactures use the memory from the bad old days to thier advanage and jack up the price of the deisel services, purely because people still have this idea that diesel cost more to maintain. Others, like Puegeot have identical costs for petrols and diesels in the same range.

Remember that I'm talking purely about service costs here, not repair costs. The common rail and injectors can cost a bucket if something goes wrong. But in my experience, they are far more reliable and robust than the old mechanical systems of the past.

That's just my take on it.

Cheers

Mintaka

[sooty]

Thanks for the info :) always nice to have a perspective from each side of the fence;)

[bornwild]

Ain saw ya today man...do you have a BOV on yours??

[sooty]

Ain saw ya today man...do you have a BOV on yours??

lol nah. can't get a BOV on the diesels. why?

[bornwild]

Your car sneezes quite loudly :p

[sooty]

Your car sneezes quite loudly :p

lol awesome. prob cos it's a car park tho. you'll have to come for a drive sometime seeing as you're looking at getting an oiler next year.

[bornwild]

Yeah I was going to ask you for a quick drive. I've driven the stock one already and love it to bits...so it'd be nice to see how the greenbox improves on it :)

[Calibrated]

Your car sneezes quite loudly :p
its the simota that does that.
almost sounds like a dose. lol

[cyclonic]

Diesels used to make sense to me when the cost of diesel was lower. Now i'm not so sure.

Hmm.. a diesel hybrid?

[digifish]

Diesels used to make sense to me when the cost of diesel was lower. Now i'm not so sure.

Hmm.. a diesel hybrid?

Why aren't people getting this?

So I want a new small car. I want something with some poke. I have ~30K to spend what do I get?

[Wraith]

You are making a good point. However I would think before buying any new car in the next 2 years, and very hard in the next 5.

When good all-electric vehicles hit the market they will be cheap, cheap to run and kill the 2n'd hand value of internal-combustion cars IMO.

digifish

That above certainly may become reality and certainly is a worry in the back of my mind, as I'm set to purchase an expensive new car some time over the next 12 months...

But what do you do ??? hang in and wait to see what happens in 2-5 years or just do it...

What a revelation it would be to someday within say 10 years from now be able to purchase petrol powered cars for only a fraction of what they cost today :doh:

[glider]

That above certainly may become reality and certainly is a worry in the back of my mind, as I'm set to purchase an expensive new car some time over the next 12 months...

But what do you do ??? hang in and wait to see what happens in 2-5 years or just do it...

What a revelation it would be to someday within say 10 years from now be able to purchase petrol powered cars for only a fraction of what they cost today :doh:

buy an expensive 2nd hand car? ;)

[digifish]

That above certainly may become reality and certainly is a worry in the back of my mind, as I'm set to purchase an expensive new car some time over the next 12 months...

But what do you do ??? hang in and wait to see what happens in 2-5 years or just do it...

What a revelation it would be to someday within say 10 years from now be able to purchase petrol powered cars for only a fraction of what they cost today :doh:

It all depends on why you are buying it. I'd say in the next 12 months you will probably only be ravaged by the usual 60% deprecation :) in the first 3 years. I think it's the 5 year time-frame that's going to get nasty.

digifish

[rjastra]

Why aren't people getting this?

So I want a new small car. I want something with some poke. I have ~30K to spend what do I get?

Polo Gti, Colt Ralliart, Lancer 2.4, Mazda 3 SP23, 207 GT, Fiat Punto t-Jet, Fiesta Xr4, ;)

[bornwild]

hehehe only cars out of those that I'd even consider purchasing are the XR4 and Polo....the rest are from crapville

[Wraith]

It all depends on why you are buying it. I'd say in the next 12 months you will probably only be ravaged by the usual 60% deprecation :) in the first 3 years. I think it's the 5 year time-frame that's going to get nasty.

digifish

Well i'd be buying it for all the reasons talked about in the TTS thread, although it may not end up being a TTS...and those reasons relate to all of us car enthusiasts...

I can live with and certainly expect a 50-60% depreciation over a 3 year period, even with an expensive exotic, the real worry would be if there was an even bigger drop than that - as much as I or all of us would want to purchase a dream car brand new, if I knew that's what was looming ahead, I'd definitely wait and buy S/H, but again none of us can predict the future accurately :(

It is wise and clever to buy S/H in a proper manner, especially if you get something under 12 months old for around 25% or more cheaper than new and that has been barely driven, but as all of us who've purchased a nice car brand new know - there's nothing that can match that experience, unfortunately you do pay for it literally :)

[dieselhead]

Just driven the new Focus Zetec 2.0 petrol manual. What a joke of a car... Refinement compared to my diesel? What refinement? It was way noisier than the Astra, both the engine and the tyre rumble was way louder at say 80 km/h and above. Don't even get me started about the lack of poke from that 2 litre 4 pot. The engine might work well on the Fiesta but is killed in the Focus. And you know what? It cost just as much as the CDTi! What a deal! :)