'Great Diesel Myth'

Currently reading:
'Great Diesel Myth'

Just because its not on your car doesnt mean they dont put turbos on petrols. :confussed: thats what its sounds like your saying.

a lot of near VW's have 1.2 Turbo petrols, so have the TFSI (Turbo AND Supercharged) <-- Now thats complicated. and theyre producing more power and better MPG than equivalent Deisels.

FIAT just chose not to put the Turbo on small petrols except the Abarths any more.
 
Personally I'm of the belief that if you're not a complete moron then a DPF diesel will be fine, but I'm sure you know that the world is sadly riddled with morons who will drive DPF diesels short distances and/or not change the oil when they're meant to.

Because the idiots who sell the cars are more interested in selling and making a comission than telling people what a DPF is or if its even fitted to the car your classing everyone as morons?

And turbos have always been fitted to Deisels, that doesnt make them less reliable. EVERY signle deisel car (bar a few Golfs) have Turbos. according to you, they should all be at the side of the road. If somethings more complicated, they research it more and make it work. not just think "**** it it'll do"
 
Last edited:
Because the idiots who sell the cars are more interested in selling and making a comission than telling people what a DPF is or if its even fitted to the car your classing everyone as morons?

Buyer beware :) Most people would completely crap themselves if a salesman mentioned the possible issues a DPF could have and would then go to another car company and buy a DPF equipped car from a salesman who didn't mention the DPF.

How many people would buy a diesel if the salesman said this could happen, even though it's unlikely if you drive it properly and service it properly too.



If consumers continue to be ignorant then they'll continue to keep on having problems which could be solved by buying something which is more appropriate for their needs. Buyer beware.
 
Just because its not on your car doesnt mean they dont put turbos on petrols. :confussed: thats what its sounds like your saying.

a lot of near VW's have 1.2 Turbo petrols, so have the TFSI (Turbo AND Supercharged) <-- Now thats complicated. and theyre producing more power and better MPG than equivalent Deisels.

FIAT just chose not to put the Turbo on small petrols except the Abarths any more.

The 1.2 TFSI's have shedloads of issues due to that complexity.

The point I was trying to make was how many petrol engines have turbo's? Still not a huge amount though it is increasing. But pretty much all diesels have them and this adds to the chance of an engine related issue.

Dave came out and made a silly statement about petrol cars having turbo's, of course they do but like I said it's a lot less common than on diesels where, like you say it's only a few older cars which don't have them.
 
And turbos have always been fitted to Deisels, that doesnt make them less reliable. EVERY signle deisel car (bar a few Golfs) have Turbos. according to you, they should all be at the side of the road. If somethings more complicated, they research it more and make it work. not just think "**** it it'll do"

I never said they'll all end up at the side of the road, I simple said that due to the added complexity that they're more likely to have issues. It's all relative. If a particular engine and car combo only has 1 issue per 1000 cars per year then it's pretty reliable, if it has 2 issues per 1000 cars per year then it's less reliable, though still relatively reliable.

As an example. Lets say that we've got a Fiat 500, a 1.2 with a single throttle body which has a failure rate of 5% per year. If we put individual throttle bodies on it which fail at the same rate then logically you're going to see 4 times the failures per car.

Ergo, more complexity = a greater chance of failure.
 
How is there less to go wrong with a petrol?

Not nessecarily less to go wrong, but the tolerances of a mordern diesel are much greater as every tom dick and harry wants a fast and economical car.

Back in the day of diesel being slow mileage munchers a lot less tended to go wrong with them.

Although modern petrols are also becoming more complex, they are under a lot less stress with lower tolerances normally.
 
How have we gone from the costs involved in running a diesel versus petrol two assuming that everything is going to break and any diesel will cost a bomb to fix?

The majority of Diesel engines are much hardier than any petrol hence why we stopped using petrol engines in commercial and agricultural vehicles years ago.

In fact some of the older diesels with all mechanical engines, with not electronics are virtually bomb proof (as top gear proved with the toyota hilux)
Many taxi drivers have doubled the mileage of there diesel taxis over and above the petrol models by which time have been scrapped.

Your video of a BMW X5 looks to me to be an old 2001-2002 model they didn't fit DPFs to these, it's just good old diesel overrun which is not a new diesel problem it's happened for years, usually resulting from having a old worn or damaged engine.

Why don't you believe that petrol cars don't have egr valves? Which have the same potential to go wrong? I was driving petrol cars in the 90s with egr valves they really aren't something new.

Duel mass fly wheels are fitted to petrol and diesel cars? Petrol cars have sparked ignitions systems which can cost a bloody fortune to fix if a coil pack fails something a diesel doesn't have to worry about.

What you seem to be doing is focusing on a couple of models then using all there faults to make a case for why petrol is better than diesel?

Lots of petrol engines have their own little faults, injectors failing or wearing out, cracked exhaust manifolds, coil packs which cost hundreds, egr systems which break, anything under the bonnet of the car has the potential to fail, a diesel version doesn't automatically have more 'stuff' than a petrol. Especially with brand new cars with stop start systems and digital networking systems to control every feature and function.

So some people have had DPF problems, I would never buy a 1.2 petrol fiat because if I look at the threads on hear they all over heat and the head gaskets blow.

All cars vans and trucks have pretty complex engines these days diesels are really no more complex than petrol cars the V8 range rovers and flat 4 Subarus were the most unreliable cars on the road (I believe they still are) neither of them are diesel.

Your complexity logic argument fails in the face of reason one throttle body for 4 cylinders has to be bigger and more complex than one individual throttle body meant for one cylinder meaning it will be more expensive and have a higher potential failure rate than something smaller and less complex which is under less stress, and is cheaper to make. So when you big throttle body fails it affects all 4 cylinders costs 3 times as much and it more complex to change, when one simpler throttle body fails its smaller, may only effect one cylinder meaning I can limp the car to a garage rather than pay for a tow truck. The part is cheaper and simpler and has a lower failure rate. You need to apply logic and reason not just assume the worst of everything.
Logically history tells us that fiat make small cheap cars which break down and rust, so logically your fiat 500 will break down and rust, reason tells us that things change over time.

You can assume any car will have a brake down in its life that's why if you are so concerned with the potential of a break down you get AA cover.

Seriously what's with all this petty bickering at the moment? Is a bigger boy picking on you? You know you should just tell a teacher !?
 
How have we gone from the costs involved in running a diesel versus petrol two assuming that everything is going to break and any diesel will cost a bomb to fix?

The majority of Diesel engines are much hardier than any petrol hence why we stopped using petrol engines in commercial and agricultural vehicles years ago.

In fact some of the older diesels with all mechanical engines, with not electronics are virtually bomb proof (as top gear proved with the toyota hilux)
Many taxi drivers have doubled the mileage of there diesel taxis over and above the petrol models by which time have been scrapped.

Your video of a BMW X5 looks to me to be an old 2001-2002 model they didn't fit DPFs to these, it's just good old diesel overrun which is not a new diesel problem it's happened for years, usually resulting from having a old worn or damaged engine.

Why don't you believe that petrol cars don't have egr valves? Which have the same potential to go wrong? I was driving petrol cars in the 90s with egr valves they really aren't something new.

Duel mass fly wheels are fitted to petrol and diesel cars? Petrol cars have sparked ignitions systems which can cost a bloody fortune to fix if a coil pack fails something a diesel doesn't have to worry about.

What you seem to be doing is focusing on a couple of models then using all there faults to make a case for why petrol is better than diesel?

Lots of petrol engines have their own little faults, injectors failing or wearing out, cracked exhaust manifolds, coil packs which cost hundreds, egr systems which break, anything under the bonnet of the car has the potential to fail, a diesel version doesn't automatically have more 'stuff' than a petrol. Especially with brand new cars with stop start systems and digital networking systems to control every feature and function.

So some people have had DPF problems, I would never buy a 1.2 petrol fiat because if I look at the threads on hear they all over heat and the head gaskets blow.

All cars vans and trucks have pretty complex engines these days diesels are really no more complex than petrol cars the V8 range rovers and flat 4 Subarus were the most unreliable cars on the road (I believe they still are) neither of them are diesel.

Your complexity logic argument fails in the face of reason one throttle body for 4 cylinders has to be bigger and more complex than one individual throttle body meant for one cylinder meaning it will be more expensive and have a higher potential failure rate than something smaller and less complex which is under less stress, and is cheaper to make. So when you big throttle body fails it affects all 4 cylinders costs 3 times as much and it more complex to change, when one simpler throttle body fails its smaller, may only effect one cylinder meaning I can limp the car to a garage rather than pay for a tow truck. The part is cheaper and simpler and has a lower failure rate. You need to apply logic and reason not just assume the worst of everything.
Logically history tells us that fiat make small cheap cars which break down and rust, so logically your fiat 500 will break down and rust, reason tells us that things change over time.

You can assume any car will have a brake down in its life that's why if you are so concerned with the potential of a break down you get AA cover.

Seriously what's with all this petty bickering at the moment? Is a bigger boy picking on you? You know you should just tell a teacher !?

Subaru's are unreliable? Funny that :) Ours has had a lot less problems than most L reg Fiat's going around :) Subaru's are unreliable when some idiot chucks on a bigger turbo and doesn't upgrade other bits which need upgrading, same as any other car, just gets done to Subaru's more often.

You completely miss the point about the 4 throttle bodies vs 1. Reliability is not about how much it costs to repair, it's about how often it breaks down or has to visit a garage. All things being equal, a more complicated car will be less reliable.

I don't know how much you know about cars, but throttle bodies don't get "stressed" anyway, it was just a very loose example of how when you increase the complexity of something that the likelihood of failure increases.

Are you guys seriously saying that simpler stuff breaks more often? :rolleyes:
 
Your video of a BMW X5 looks to me to be an old 2001-2002 model they didn't fit DPFs to these, it's just good old diesel overrun which is not a new diesel problem it's happened for years, usually resulting from having a old worn or damaged engine.

Why don't you believe that petrol cars don't have egr valves? Which have the same potential to go wrong? I was driving petrol cars in the 90s with egr valves they really aren't something new.

Sure petrol cars have EGR valves, but they don't get clogged up with carbon nearly as quickly as those in diesels, in fact I suspect most petrol cars will go to the scrappy with the original EGR valve there probably never having been cleaned.

I didn't say that the X5 had done that because of a DPF, I simply was trying to make the point that because of the DPF that is more likely. A petrol engine simply can not lunch itself in this manner.

Diesel is an inherently dirty fuel which causes problems in itself compared to a relatively clean burning fuel like petrol.
 
Subaru's are unreliable? Funny that :) Ours has had a lot less problems than most L reg Fiat's going around
for a long while Subaru held the title of most unreliable car in the uk by not only their propensity to break down but also the average cost of repair, please stop making the mistake that your experience of life applies to everyone else, also making a comparison to an 18year old budget car in terms of reliability isn't exactly a very good indicator, an 90 year old mans prostate is probably more reliable than most L reg fiats.

I didn't say that the X5 had done that because of a DPF, I simply was trying to make the point that because of the DPF that is more likely. A petrol engine simply can not lunch itself in this manner.
Really because that was pretty much your implication when you said
Buyer beware :) Most people would completely crap themselves if a salesman mentioned the possible issues a DPF could have and would then go to another car company and buy a DPF equipped car from a salesman who didn't mention the DPF.

How many people would buy a diesel if the salesman said this could happen, even though it's unlikely if you drive it properly and service it properly too.

BMW Engine Crash - YouTube
so you mentioned 'DPF' three times then said about a 'salesman' mentioning the problems associate with a DPF then said again about a sales man and stating 'this could happen' and posted a link to a video of an old X5 without a DPF on overrun?
You are basing your entire argument against Diesel engine cars on a DPF and a video of a non DPF car with a failing engine. My first statement said you have to take each make and model on its merits some petrol cars will be better value than there diesel counter part, but then again some Diesel engines are far superior to the petrol equivalent, but your opinion with little or no real world investigation or experience is some diesels have a DPF or a turbo so will automatically explode and are thus not as cheap to run or own? And you expect people to take you seriously?
 
for a long while Subaru held the title of most unreliable car in the uk by not only their propensity to break down but also the average cost of repair, please stop making the mistake that your experience of life applies to everyone else, also making a comparison to an 18year old budget car in terms of reliability isn't exactly a very good indicator, an 90 year old mans prostate is probably more reliable than most L reg fiats.


Really because that was pretty much your implication when you said
so you mentioned 'DPF' three times then said about a 'salesman' mentioning the problems associate with a DPF then said again about a sales man and stating 'this could happen' and posted a link to a video of an old X5 without a DPF on overrun?
You are basing your entire argument against Diesel engine cars on a DPF and a video of a non DPF car with a failing engine. My first statement said you have to take each make and model on its merits some petrol cars will be better value than there diesel counter part, but then again some Diesel engines are far superior to the petrol equivalent, but your opinion with little or no real world investigation or experience is some diesels have a DPF or a turbo so will automatically explode and are thus not as cheap to run or own? And you expect people to take you seriously?

Why is it that you're constantly allowed to make statements without any real world investigation (you know, like when I made reference to that thread in the Panda forum) about how Subaru's are supposedly the most unreliable cars. I've known plenty of people with Subaru's and the only time I've heard of people having any trouble is when they modify them. Then again, you obviously know more by virtue of you not having owned one yourself :rolleyes: I love our 500 and think it's a great car and generally reliable but due to the fact the suspension is made out of cheese I couldn't recommend them to a friend who wasn't going to be understanding when the rear dampers needed replacing and the strut tops went every 2 or 3 years. Subaru's however, I would certainly recommend as long as we're not talking the 2.5 litre which likes its head gaskets.

I'm not saying that all diesels are crap and that all diesels will die a horrible DPF fuelled death.

I was simply pointing out that with the addition of DPF's, previously very reliable and very simple diesel engined cars were now more expensive to maintain and more likely to fail which means they make less sense than they previously did, not to say they don't make sense for everyone....... Prior to DPF's, diesels were for everyone, whether you did small mileages or big ones. Now with DPF's you have the issue of missed regens, DPF's not getting up to temperature with short journeys and more frequent oil changes. If you've been on any of the forums which deal with more modern DPF equipped diesels you can know how much of a nightmare it can be for some people. grimwau had loads of issues with his 1.3 MJ 500 and was having to take it for extra journeys at speed to attempt to clear the DPF. You can't tell me that this isn't a negative.

As for the X5, the cause wasn't the point of me posting the video, the reason for posting it was the result which would scare people more than they actually need be scared. If you really want to I can find a video of a DPF equipped diesel consuming its own oil if it pleases you :)

Food for thought, which funnily enough you've actually seen because you've posted in it.

https://www.fiatforum.com/500/308196-1-3-deisel-went-bang.html

Again, I'm not completely against diesels, I just think that modern emissions have made diesel engined cars less advantageous than they previously were.
 
Sorry to divert conversation from the above but I used to drive a 1.2 T reg renault clio petrol. It was a good little motor but only kicked out 32mpg which was awful because I drive around 50 miles per day for work. I was filling up once a week with an average cost of £36.00 a tank.
I've now got a 1.9 gp sporting which is diesel. I do the same journey everyday but manage to average 48mpg - if I really push it I can kick out 54. I fill up once every 12 days at an average cost of £45.00 for a tank.
I get paid 4 weekly so we'll take that as my month. The petrol was costing me £144 pm in fuel and the diesel costs me £92-100 max. Admittedly I took out a loan to buy the car so the monthly repayments are taking up a sizeable chunk of my pay but had I not taken that out I'd be much better off each month!
 
Sorry to divert conversation from the above but I used to drive a 1.2 T reg renault clio petrol. It was a good little motor but only kicked out 32mpg which was awful because I drive around 50 miles per day for work. I was filling up once a week with an average cost of £36.00 a tank.
I've now got a 1.9 gp sporting which is diesel. I do the same journey everyday but manage to average 48mpg - if I really push it I can kick out 54. I fill up once every 12 days at an average cost of £45.00 for a tank.
I get paid 4 weekly so we'll take that as my month. The petrol was costing me £144 pm in fuel and the diesel costs me £92-100 max. Admittedly I took out a loan to buy the car so the monthly repayments are taking up a sizeable chunk of my pay but had I not taken that out I'd be much better off each month!

If you're doing 50 miles a day then diesel is a nobrainer (y) That said, my 500 averages 47 mpg and if the wife didn't drive it that average would be about 50 but I've had over 60 when I've really tried.
 
Hang on a sec, all cars can go wrong, regardless of Diesel or Petrol, you can own as many diesels and petrols as you like and there's nothing that statistically says that one is more likely to fail than the other. Yes runaway diesels are a problem and most of them use turbos because otherwise they'd be as slow as a wet weekend but a well maintained diesel shouldn't have problems just as a well maintained petrol shouldn't have problems.
 
Why is it that you're constantly allowed to make statements without any real world investigation (you know, like when I made reference to that thread in the Panda forum) about how Subaru's are supposedly the most unreliable cars. I've known plenty of people with Subaru's and the only time I've heard of people having any trouble is when they modify them. Then again, you obviously know more by virtue of you not having owned one yourself :rolleyes:
This was Data from around 2006 from warranty direct they have their reliability index and each year release details on the most reliable and unreliable makes and models, a few years back it was Land Rover (range rover) and Subaru (Impreza) they have done a great deal since to improve things and rank much better now, these days Porsche and LandRover top the unreliable chart.

Subaru's however, I would certainly recommend as long as we're not talking the 2.5 litre which likes its head gaskets.
so by your own admission they do have there problems?



I was simply pointing out that with the addition of DPF's, previously very reliable and very simple diesel engined cars were now more expensive to maintain and more likely to fail which means they make less sense than they previously did, not to say they don't make sense for everyone....... Prior to DPF's, diesels were for everyone, whether you did small mileages or big ones. Now with DPF's you have the issue of missed regens, DPF's not getting up to temperature with short journeys and more frequent oil changes. If you've been on any of the forums which deal with more modern DPF equipped diesels you can know how much of a nightmare it can be for some people. grimwau had loads of issues with his 1.3 MJ 500 and was having to take it for extra journeys at speed to attempt to clear the DPF. You can't tell me that this isn't a negative.

you can't tell me this is the norm... there are literally thousands of 1.3 multijet installed fiat alfa vauxhall and Suzuki cars all over the world, at present I dont see them littering the motorways of great britain bellowing smoke and exploding?

As for the X5, the cause wasn't the point of me posting the video, the reason for posting it was the result which would scare people more than they actually need be scared. If you really want to I can find a video of a DPF equipped diesel consuming its own oil if it pleases you :)
Go for it you can't make a 'this will happen claim' without knowing the ins and outs of the situation. that X5 could have been miss treated, over filled with oil, or have knackered piston rings with 500,000 miles on the clock

Food for thought, which funnily enough you've actually seen because you've posted in it.

https://www.fiatforum.com/500/308196-1-3-deisel-went-bang.html
indeed i did comment but the original poster was an unknown and never came back so we some how know that the DPF had anything to do with it? could even be the same person from the telegraph article, hell it could be a really rare occurance and only one person in the whole UK has ever had this happen of all the thousands of Fiat 500 1.3 multijets sold

Again, I'm not completely against diesels, I just think that modern emissions have made diesel engined cars less advantageous than they previously were.
and you make this claim ignoring the millions of consumers who have non of the problems you've claimed will definitely be a problem?

As I keep saying anyone looking to buy a car should take any car on its merits and what you need to use it for driving round central london in rush hour doing 5 miles a day at an average 10 miles an hour you would be much better off with a 1.2 petrol with stop start, but doing 100 miles a day like me at between 30-70 miles an hour for an hour and a half at a time I don't think i would ever have any problems with any modern diesel DPF or not
 
Hang on a sec, all cars can go wrong, regardless of Diesel or Petrol, you can own as many diesels and petrols as you like and there's nothing that statistically says that one is more likely to fail than the other. Yes runaway diesels are a problem and most of them use turbos because otherwise they'd be as slow as a wet weekend but a well maintained diesel shouldn't have problems just as a well maintained petrol shouldn't have problems.

Indeed I though the idea of this thread was benefits of one fuel over the other, and it seems to have become a slanging match against one derivative because of some posts on a forum for car owners with problems suggest there is a problem?? :rolleyes:

the DPF argument is ridiculous a couple of people have a problem suddenly its a national problem
 
This was Data from around 2006 from warranty direct they have their reliability index and each year release details on the most reliable and unreliable makes and models, a few years back it was Land Rover (range rover) and Subaru (Impreza) they have done a great deal since to improve things and rank much better now, these days Porsche and LandRover top the unreliable chart.

Can you actually link to this supposed data? :)

http://www.whatcar.com/car-news/jd-power-satisfaction-survey-2006/4x4s/220291

At this stage the Forester was still sharing its platform and nearly all of its mechanicals with the Impreza so I would be most surprised if you could dig up something from that era which suggests that Subaru's were unreliable at the time. But hey ho give it a go.

Show me the proof (y)
 
you can't tell me this is the norm... there are literally thousands of 1.3 multijet installed fiat alfa vauxhall and Suzuki cars all over the world, at present I dont see them littering the motorways of great britain bellowing smoke and exploding?


Go for it you can't make a 'this will happen claim' without knowing the ins and outs of the situation. that X5 could have been miss treated, over filled with oil, or have knackered piston rings with 500,000 miles on the clock

indeed i did comment but the original poster was an unknown and never came back so we some how know that the DPF had anything to do with it? could even be the same person from the telegraph article, hell it could be a really rare occurance and only one person in the whole UK has ever had this happen of all the thousands of Fiat 500 1.3 multijets sold

and you make this claim ignoring the millions of consumers who have non of the problems you've claimed will definitely be a problem?

Oh for Petes sake, you've completely misunderstood my post.

What I say
Diesels aren't as well suited to use by average road users as they used to be

What you think I say
All diesels are crap for everyone and will blow up. I also think that the non-DPF X5 in that video died because of a DPF problem

Learn to read and then come back and actually understand my posts before replying again. You seem to be in a tizz from the other thread and are letting things spill into this one. My argument is that diesels are no longer the clear choice as they once were. There are a number of reasons for this, emissions equipment and also better technology for petrol engines. If you disagree then fine, but stop putting words in my mouth :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top