500 How long until your 500 fell apart, mine is not yet 6 !!

[UFI]

Rather than picking and choosing models which try to prove your side of the argument why not post something a bit more relevant? You witter on about the JEEP Cherokee but their were more fiat 500s of all models and editions register in the UK last year alone than the entirety of all Cherokee models still on the road from every year they've ever been on sale. In total their are over 4 times as many fiat 500s than their are JEEPS!

Even if you include Fiat Professional, you'll find Jeep outsell Fiat 4:1 here (and 11:1 for just the 500). We don't have a site like how many left, but Australia is the second biggest Jeep market in the world (and possibly the smallest 500 market in the world). If we're talking Co2 which is a shared global problem (rather than particulates which are more local), then I'd say Jeep is entirely relevant to the discussion. I could have posted a Rangie, but the diesels are almost half as slow as the petrols.

You could have compared the Mercedes benz 3.0CDI with the 3.0 petrol but you didn't, why is that I wonder?

AU publications don't list CO2 so I'm working off an older UK buyers guide. It lists the E200K as 202g and the E220CDi at 170g, however the performance is too different to compare.

I must admit I didn't look at the Audi A8 but I suspect I will find yet more confirmation bias when looking at the stats.

You'll see what you want to see - there aren't that many cars where performance is a close as with the A8. Like I said, there are some standouts, like the Alfa 147, the petrol 1.6 puts out 192g while the (much faster) 1.9JTD puts out 157g. However, Audi's 1.6 in the A3 puts out 158g (vs 192) so I concluded that while the diesel is still really good, the gap is because the petrol was lousy (at least on Co2).

Post up the stats for Euro4 and euro5 fiat fire engines the 1242 petrol and 1248 diesel show is how they compare

I already admitted that Fiat and PSA diesels have some stand outs. A while back you claimed that petrols are no more or less complicated than diesels, so I'd rather compare it to something with a similar level of complexity (and things to go wrong - you know a turbo, DMF [an intercooler isn't complex but it can still crack] etc), so I'd rather compare to a Twinair though , 30% faster and 15% less CO2 than a MJ. I deliberately haven't posted any of the new fangled downsized small capacity turbos.

Better still what about the Ford Focus one of the UK (and the worlds best selling cars) how does that pan out?

No Ford car sells well here. C-Class almost doubles Ford's best single model (Falcon). The best Focus diesel is 88g vs the best petrol of 99g, if you're holding that up as a Co2 champion, that's 12.5%. I'll concede that the diesel's faster.

 

[AndyRKett]

. If we're talking Co2 which is a shared global problem (rather than particulates which are more local), then I'd say Jeep is entirely relevant to the discussion.

AU publications don't list CO2 so I'm working off an older UK buyers guide. It lists the E200K as 202g and the E220CDi at 170g, however the performance is too different to compare.

You'll see what you want to see - there aren't that many cars where performance is a close as with the A8. Like I said, there are some standouts, like the Alfa 147, the petrol 1.6 puts out 192g while the (much faster) 1.9JTD puts out 157g. However, Audi's 1.6 in the A3 puts out 158g (vs 192) so I concluded that while the diesel is still really good, the gap is because the petrol was lousy (at least on Co2).

, so I'd rather compare it to something with a similar level of complexity I deliberately haven't posted any of the new fangled downsized small capacity turbos.

No Ford car sells well here. C-Class almost doubles Ford's best single model (Falcon). The best Focus diesel is 88g vs the best petrol of 99g, if you're holding that up as a Co2 champion, that's 12.5%. I'll concede that the diesel's faster.

So picking out your main points from that. You pretty much say all the way through that you will post what you want to post. The fact of the matter is you post about the jeep being a big seller in AUS when it isn't at all in the UK or Europe, but when talking about CO2 emission globally and diesel cars emmiting 20% less CO2 than petrols (which I should add is a government estimate) then jeep sales do not represent the masses.

A Mercedes E-class? Or C-Class Really representative of the worlds buying habits, or of average CO2 emissions ?

You're just picking and choosing what you want to make a point In an otherwise floored argument.

Take the Ford Focus, they might not sell many in austraila but world wide they sell nearly a million of them a year. The most popular of which is the 1.6 engine.

If you compare the 1.6 petrol and diesel focus you'll find a lot of similarities however overall the diesel fares better in almost every area.

Both are 1596cc

Petrol 103bhp
Diesel 113bhp

Petrol 116 mph top speed
Diesel 120 mph top speed

Petrol 0-60 in 12.3 seconds.
Diesel 0-60 in 10.9 seconds.

Petrol 47.9mpg combined
Diesel 67.3mpg combined

Petrol CO2 136g/Km that's 24% more than the diesel.
Diesel CO2 109g/Km

In a standard 200,000km car life time the diesel emits 5.4tons less CO2!

These are the sort of figures you're avoiding/ignoring

 

[StevenRB45]

So picking out your main points from that. You pretty much say all the way through that you will post what you want to post. The fact of the matter is you post about the jeep being a big seller in AUS when it isn't at all in the UK or Europe, but when talking about CO2 emission globally and diesel cars emmiting 20% less CO2 than petrols (which I should add is a government estimate) then jeep sales do not represent the masses.

A Mercedes E-class? Or C-Class Really representative of the worlds buying habits, or of average CO2 emissions ?

You're just picking and choosing what you want to make a point In an otherwise floored argument.

Take the Ford Focus, they might not sell many in austraila but world wide they sell nearly a million of them a year. The most popular of which is the 1.6 engine.

If you compare the 1.6 petrol and diesel focus you'll find a lot of similarities however overall the diesel fares better in almost every area.

Both are 1596cc

Petrol 103bhp
Diesel 113bhp

Petrol 116 mph top speed
Diesel 120 mph top speed

Petrol 0-60 in 12.3 seconds.
Diesel 0-60 in 10.9 seconds.

Petrol 47.9mpg combined
Diesel 67.3mpg combined

Petrol CO2 136g/Km that's 24% more than the diesel.
Diesel CO2 109g/Km

In a standard 200,000km car life time the diesel emits 5.4tons less CO2!

These are the sort of figures you're avoiding/ignoring

Again this is selective figure usage the 1.6 petrol has been all but replaced by the 1.0 eco boost. The only one that is left is the lowest spec that was available when there was a range of 1.6s. Your comparison does start to look a little thin if you use the 123bhp 1.6 that was the (cheaper) equivalent of the 1.6 diesel before being phased out for the ecoboost or the ecoboost itself. That engine is faster than diesel and produces the same CO2 figures as the low powered petrol.

Or we could use the ecoboost itself if you wanted a relevant comparison...although then we'd have to get into whether or not either car could achieve it's claimed figures, if either is more or less likely to be reliable..and it's sunday so I'm not in the mood.

 

[puntofan01]

Again this is selective figure usage the 1.6 petrol has been all but replaced by the 1.0 eco boost. The only one that is left is the lowest spec that was available when there was a range of 1.6s. Your comparison does start to look a little thin if you use the 123bhp 1.6 that was the (cheaper) equivalent of the 1.6 diesel before being phased out for the ecoboost or the ecoboost itself. That engine is faster than diesel and produces the same CO2 figures as the low powered petrol.

Or we could use the ecoboost itself if you wanted a relevant comparison...although then we'd have to get into whether or not either car could achieve it's claimed figures, if either is more or less likely to be reliable..and it's sunday so I'm not in the mood.

I don't think they even make a 1.6 focus at all anymore. I think they're all a new 1.5 turbo. I'm not sure if the 1.0 is still available in the focus.

 

[AndyRKett]

Again this is selective figure usage the 1.6 petrol has been all but replaced by the 1.0 eco boost. The only one that is left is the lowest spec that was available when there was a range of 1.6s. Your comparison does start to look a little thin if you use the 123bhp 1.6 that was the (cheaper) equivalent of the 1.6 diesel before being phased out for the ecoboost or the ecoboost itself. That engine is faster than diesel and produces the same CO2 figures as the low powered petrol.



Or we could use the ecoboost itself if you wanted a relevant comparison...although then we'd have to get into whether or not either car could achieve it's claimed figures, if either is more or less likely to be reliable..and it's sunday so I'm not in the mood.

We're talking relative performance between the models, and world wide figures the Eco boost is a new engine and if you look at car sales sites there are very few 1.0 Eco boosts about, while there are hundreds and hundreds of 1.6 petrol and diesel models.

Their is no point in arguing about claimed versus real world figures as all cars are tested the same so it's a fair comparison

The claimed 20% difference in co2 between petrol and diesel cars is something that has been worked out by governments and is an across the board figure encompassing all cars, so comparing one model car to another is generally a pointless exercise.

The reason for picking the focus is its one of the worlds best sellers and the 1.6 is the most popular engine. I could post up figures from other cars. The panda diesel emits 17% less co2 than the petrol for instance. Or if you want to look as small capacity turbos the golf mk7 (another world best seller) comes in petrol or diesel with 150bhp the petrol is a 1.4 turbo the diesel is a 2.0 turbo both euro 6 engines same top speed and almost identical performance. The diesel despite its 42% larger capacity the diesel still emits about 6% less CO2 and gets considerably better fuel economy.

So not just picking out random models picking out best sellers that reflect people's buying habits world wide.

 

[306maxi]

Blimey, is this how I used to sound when I went off on one?

 

[StevenRB45]

I was just a little confused that you used the base spec petrol but the not the base spec 1.6 diesel, but that does have 95bhp..so wouldn't fit your argument anywhere near as well

 

[AndyRKett]

I was just a little confused that you used the base spec petrol but the not the base spec 1.6 diesel, but that does have 95bhp..so wouldn't fit your argument anywhere near as well

Fair enough I'd looked but didn't realise there was a lower spec model, but in the interests of fairness.

Petrol is 1596cc
Diesel is 1560cc





Petrol 103bhp


Diesel 93bhp





Petrol 116 mph top speed


Diesel 112 mph top speed





Petrol 0-60 in 12.3 seconds.


Diesel 0-60 in 12.1 seconds.





Petrol 47.9mpg combined


Diesel 67 mpg combined





Petrol CO2 136g/Km that's 24% more than the diesel.


Diesel CO2 109g/Km

..... Makes no difference to the CO2 figures a tiny decrease in fuel economy just a slight decrease in overall performance.

I should add I'm looking specifically at the 2011 - 2014 models of Ford Focus as it's unfair to compare different generations


I'm not arguing diesels are better than petrols, my stance is that their is no difference overall between on or the other, and that diesels are certainly not anymore polluting especially in euro6 guise. And taking into account fuel economy and co2 emissions

 

[306maxi]

zzzzzzzzzz

 

[UFI]

The fact of the matter is you post about the jeep being a big seller in AUS when it isn't at all in the UK or Europe, but when talking about CO2 emission globally and diesel cars emmiting 20% less CO2 than petrols (which I should add is a government estimate) then jeep sales do not represent the masses.

A Mercedes E-class? Or C-Class Really representative of the worlds buying habits, or of average CO2 emissions ?

Take the Ford Focus, they might not sell many in austraila but world wide they sell nearly a million of them a year

Total Jeep sales are 1 million world wide so no less relevant than the Focus. C-Class alone sells about 300,000 annually so not exactly niche vehicles. If anything Jeep is more relevant because 1 million Jeeps put out more Co2 than 1 million Focus'. We and the US don't get the diesel, but the US gets the Eco-Boost - we don't last I checked.

I'd still like to see how the 20% Co2 figure was calculated, I've tried to find some source to it, but can't.

 

[AndyRKett]

Total Jeep sales are 1 million world wide so no less relevant than the Focus.

I'd still like to see how the 20% Co2 figure was calculated, I've tried to find some source to it, but can't.

Firstly jeep only builds SUVs so you've chosen them because the emissions of those vehicles will be relatively high compared to other companies, they also don't invest huge amounts in their engine technology like other manufacturers. They may have sold a million cars but ford sold a million focus models and over 10million cars total in the same period, so did Toyota so did GM in fact jeep and Mercedes don't feature in the list of top 15 or so manufacturers, With Chinese maker Dongfeng selling more cars than jeep or Mercedes. So no I don't really consider two old jeeps to be a fair representation of the industry as a whole.

On the question of CO2 the 20% figure comes up time and time again where ever you look. I'm not sure where the original data comes from but governments and manufactures quote it, along side environment groups. So in the grand scheme of things it seems likely to be a fair piece of information. Especially when people from all sides of the argument are happy to go with it.

Essentially you still have yet to show in any way shape or form that diesels (specifically new diesels) are any worse than petrols. And this is the same argument that manufactures are having with governments right now who are looking to demonise the diesel on little or no information.

With half of all new UK car sales being diesel even if it was only a 10% difference in CO2 emissions if going to see a substantial increase in the UKs CO2 output so if everyone suddenly starts buying petrol cars instead.

 

[MN500]

Their is no point in arguing about claimed versus real world figures as all cars are tested the same so it's a fair comparison .

Whenever I have driven a turbodiesel I haven't got close to its claimed economy, I expect it is using the turbo that kills it. The standardised EU test is probably so leisurely and expertly driven that it doesn't need to use the turbo thus giving unrealistic and therefore TOTALLY POINTLESS figures. I expect the same is true for the modern trend of small turbo petrols such as the Ford Ecoboost and Fiat Twinair unless driven very carefully.

Whereas my NA petrol beats its published combined figures, calculated properly not by its computer, and is driven normally on a mixture of roads (not like a Nun and not always on the motorway). In fact it varies less than 5mpg all year round.

People were comparing various petrols against diesels such as the Ford Focus 1.6 but were comparing performance/power figures for a NA petrol against a turbo diesel. If you compare two NA engines such as the VW 2.0 SDi against the VW 2.0 FSi of a few years ago then the diesel compares poorly.

 

[johnxtype]

Wow this thread has definitely gone AWOL lmao.
I think the easiest way to sum up, and the one thing that hasn't really been mentioned by any government or lobby group because they would rather blame diesel, petrol or any other thing they can come up with :-

HUMAN RACE = USING RESOURCES = DESTRUCTION OF THE PLANET

Let's face it its not rocket science is it, the human population is growing and using resources. But at the same time building over green arable land and forests.
When does it come to the point that the powers that be realise its actually MANKIND that is causing the destruction of mankind.
The more houses, towns and cities you build the more Earth is harmed.
But in all honesty who gives a damn, I don't.
All this pollution talk about saving the planet etc for future generations, what a load of tosh. The only thing we will be "saving the planet" for is for when the sun decides to go supernova and fries every living thing in the solar system.
So the real important debates should be :- WHAT THE HELL ARE THE GOVERNMENTS DOING ABOUT GETTING US THE HELL OFF THIS DOOMED ROCK.
That is what I would like to know, because unless they start doing something worthwhile about it now, then in all honesty future generations are doomed.
Also the human race will survive a polluted planet as each generation will adapt slightly to the conditions, and has been seen before with different species often referred to as " survival of the fittest".
I honestly cannot see the point in arguing over petrol vs diesel when in the grand scheme of things its small fry. So how about we actually admit modern life and technology is bad for you and put this to bed ???

 

[StevenRB45]

If car exhaust was only made of CO2 you may have point. But concentrating on one thing out of a whole array of nasties is slightly daft.

What would the decrease in particulate emissions and oxides of nitrogen be if the UK suddenly switched to petrol? Here's a clue a modern diesel produces 20 times more oxides of nitrogen than a modern petrol (from the guardian)

One is an immediate threat to human health one is a long term threat to human health although you could argue that if every person with a patio heater didn't use it then the CO2 increase would be offset..let's ban patio heaters and diesels there we go all solved.

 

[johnxtype]

The point I was trying to make was our own technological advances are our own undoing, as is the growing population.
Also isn't it a bit pointless arguing about how good or bad petrol and diesel cars are on A CAR FORUM !!!! Incidentally something which seems to happen on every car forum.
Shouldn't that be saved for " the Greenpeace forum" lmao.
Surely after all these pages of wittering on about this statistic and that opposing statistic this can be put to bed ????
I mean come on how can ANYBODY that drives a car think they can be so high and mighty in the scheme of things ? A bit condescending if you ask me.
The only people on this planet who actually do have the right to complain are the ones who still live without ANY technology, in the forests, deserts, mountains and plains and who live entirely off the land. Just like our ancestors did.
Even Greenpeace in my eyes are a bunch of hypocrites.
I will openly admit, I pollute and I know my actions, spending and consumption of resources are no good for the planet or mankind. I've accepted that fact and I can live with it.
So going on that why argue about what car is worse than the other when really they are all bad ??? Its just seems to be a totally pointless argument that could go on and on, and which to be honest does no good for the forum as members do get bored with the same stuff over and over again, and they do leave which I've seen on other forums. This leads to knowledgeable members leaving and the quality of helpful content disappears and bad advice follows.
Just my thoughts on the whole thing.

 

[AGH1965]

I'm sorry to interrupt the diesel vs. petrol discussion, but I found something in this thread that intrigues me.

a good point has been made regarding diesels and reliabilty.

You can add excessive DPF regens causing melted pistons to the list.

How is that possible? The heat necessary for the regeneration of the DPF is created by burning fuel in the DOC. For melting pistons that heat should go upstream, in the opposite direction of the exhaust gas flow. That seems odd. Isn't it?

 

[AndyRKett]

Whenever I have driven a turbodiesel I haven't got close to its claimed economy, I expect it is using the turbo that kills it. The standardised EU test is probably so leisurely and expertly driven that it doesn't need to use the turbo thus giving unrealistic and therefore TOTALLY POINTLESS figures. I expect the same is true for the modern trend of small turbo petrols such as the Ford Ecoboost and Fiat Twinair unless driven very carefully.

Pretty much all new cars fail to get anywhere near stated figures, manufacturers deliberately cook the books on fuel economy tests to get the numbers as high as possible ie over inflating tyre to cut rolling resistance, making sure batteries are fully charge externally before beginning the tests so the alternator doesn't need to charge the battery. and a number of other cheats and tricks to get the numbers up. Plus most new cars have start stop which is used correctly on the tests but often isn't in the real world.

My 2004 punto diesel gets exactly the stated figures for fuel economy out mini doesn't.

 

[AndyRKett]

If car exhaust was only made of CO2 you may have point. But concentrating on one thing out of a whole array of nasties is slightly daft.



What would the decrease in particulate emissions and oxides of nitrogen be if the UK suddenly switched to petrol? Here's a clue a modern diesel produces 20 times more oxides of nitrogen than a modern petrol (from the guardian)



One is an immediate threat to human health one is a long term threat to human health although you could argue that if every person with a patio heater didn't use it then the CO2 increase would be offset..let's ban patio heaters and diesels there we go all solved.

And so the circle continues....

Yes older diesels produce more nitrogen oxides and particulates..... But Euro 6 standards have eradicated this (note your guardian article is from 2012 when we only just had euro 5 standards imposed) Now petrol and diesels have more or less the same standards for particulates and oxides. (Also as I've already pointed out petrol cars produce more and more NOx and NO2 as they get older)

 

[AndyRKett]

So going on that why argue about what car is worse than the other when really they are all bad ???

Pretty much the argument I made from the start! And look what happened.

 

[StevenRB45]

Looks like it's bikes all around..

Oh well any excuse for Lycra..although my emissions after a curry don't meet European standards..