I asked for evidence.
Opinions are not necessarily evidence unless supplied with data and sources to back it up.
But I'm not too bothered if he doesn't want to back up his opinion
I'm not one of these people who think that just because its there opinion it's correct, if someone shows me evidence then ill happily except it.
How do you give evidence of this anyway? As far as I know there aren't any statistics out there which do the comparison.
I've done my best to post examples unlike others who make claims which could be backed-up/disproved with evidence and then when I post evidence which goes against what they say they just call me a troll
Does that not seem a little unfair?
Like I said before, modern diesels simply aren't as reliable as they used to be. Like MEP said, they're pushing impressive power and torque figures out. No longer is 90bhp from a 1.9 acceptable as it was in my 406. You've got the same displacement engines pumping out 170+ BHP nowadays. Turbo's which weren't stressed before, now are and fail more regularly.
You seem to be confusing the fact that I'm saying diesels are less reliable than previous (due to being more complex and having more things to fail!) with me saying that diesels are now "unreliable". I never said that at all
Just remember that when a dpf equipped diesel does a regen, some of that fuel makes its way into the sump so those precision engineered turbo bearings that love spinning on nice 5w30 (or whatever grade oil the manufacturer uses) as they're designed to do, will now have diesel running through them with all the horrible stuff that's contained within diesel. Sulfur, particulate matter etc etc etc
Don't get me wrong, for the mile munchers diesel will always be the way to go, but as others have agreed, the case is less clear for people doing shorter journeys and it wasn't always like this......