'Great Diesel Myth'

[johnstoke]

There's good and bad in both petrol and diesel. For me, diesel is the way to go as I do 25k+miles per year, a round trip to work is 55 miles. Thankfully, every car I've had has been totally reliable, barring the odd alternator etc. I wouldnt buy a diesel if i was only doing short local journeys though

 

[AndyRKett]

Can you actually link to this supposed data?

typical troll behaviour pick one element and use it to try and ignore everything else your evidence: take a time machine back 7 years and look at the waranty direct website, at the time I owned a Range Rover and was looking to buy a waranty for it but gave up on finding the 'reliability index' and how much it cost. at the time they had a top ten most unreliable. once expired they no longer publish the results on there site, and keep current up to date results on there for obvious reasons. they no longer list the Impreza but the old Forester isn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability with 25% of its problems being due to the fuel system alone and an average cost of repair being £480. However if you look now you will see that Landrover are the most unreliable mainly due to their V8 petrol rangrovers and OTT electronics and Porsche who are not really renowned for there range of diesel engines.


This is Diesel versus Petrol in ownership costs over time, i'm sorry but in reliability terms Diesel has and always will beat petrol.

you seem to be basing your opinions in a completely different view point to the rest of us. what you are actually saying is diesels have DPF so are now more unreliable so much so that it brings to question the reliability of all diesels and the long term costs of owning a diesel make them more of a risk financially than a petrol equivalent. this is your argument, not that anyone was even remotely interested in this as the conversation was about running costs, servicing fuel use etc, you decided to throw in reliability as a possible problem of car ownership which of course it is with any car but i have yet to see any evidence that side by side any petrol engine can be shown to be more reliable than its diesel equivalent

if you are not saying

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

1. why post that video it shows a diesel in over run has nothing to do with DPF diesels have done this for years turbo and non turbo its not an argument its a video with no point.

2.why do you keep arguing so militantly that DPFs are a problem some people have had issues but then thats life there are millions of vehicles fitted with these systems that have no problem whatsoever

Diesels have never been as user friendly as petrol cars with glow plug warming times and high pressure mechanical fuel pumps which don't like being run dry, not to mention not being as amenable to sub zero temperatures as a petrol engine.

seriously get off your high horse, you bought a petrol we get it but you clearly have nothing more than a few forum post to base your opinions on with regards to diesels and DPF as you've not considered any factors out side of this forum, before you continue to keep telling people to 'learn to read' you need to learn to form reasoned argument think critically and openly, then present your ideas and opinions clearly and with out embellishment so as to minimise the need to have to interpret your insane ill-educated ramblings, because if people don't understand you, you only have yourself to blame

 

[306maxi]

typical troll behaviour pick one element and use it to try and ignore everything else your evidence: take a time machine back 7 years and look at the waranty direct website, at the time I owned a Range Rover and was looking to buy a waranty for it but gave up on finding the 'reliability index' and how much it cost. at the time they had a top ten most unreliable. once expired they no longer publish the results on there site, and keep current up to date results on there for obvious reasons. they no longer list the Impreza but the old Forester isn't exactly the pinnacle of reliability with 25% of its problems being due to the fuel system alone and an average cost of repair being £480. However if you look now you will see that Landrover are the most unreliable mainly due to their V8 petrol rangrovers and OTT electronics and Porsche who are not really renowned for there range of diesel engines.


This is Diesel versus Petrol in ownership costs over time, i'm sorry but in reliability terms Diesel has and always will beat petrol.

you seem to be basing your opinions in a completely different view point to the rest of us. what you are actually saying is diesels have DPF so are now more unreliable so much so that it brings to question the reliability of all diesels and the long term costs of owning a diesel make them more of a risk financially than a petrol equivalent. this is your argument, not that anyone was even remotely interested in this as the conversation was about running costs, servicing fuel use etc, you decided to throw in reliability as a possible problem of car ownership which of course it is with any car but i have yet to see any evidence that side by side any petrol engine can be shown to be more reliable than its diesel equivalent

if you are not saying
1. why post that video it shows a diesel in over run has nothing to do with DPF diesels have done this for years turbo and non turbo its not an argument its a video with no point.

2.why do you keep arguing so militantly that DPFs are a problem some people have had issues but then thats life there are millions of vehicles fitted with these systems that have no problem whatsoever

Diesels have never been as user friendly as petrol cars with glow plug warming times and high pressure mechanical fuel pumps which don't like being run dry, not to mention not being as amenable to sub zero temperatures as a petrol engine.

seriously get off your high horse, you bought a petrol we get it but you clearly have nothing more than a few forum post to base your opinions on with regards to diesels and DPF as you've not considered any factors out side of this forum, before you continue to keep telling people to 'learn to read' you need to learn to form reasoned argument think critically and openly, then present your ideas and opinions clearly and with out embellishment so as to minimise the need to have to interpret your insane ill-educated ramblings, because if people don't understand you, you only have yourself to blame

If you put Subaru and reliability survey into google then you will pretty much ALWAYS come up with positive results. Troll behaviour is not to ask the person arguing with you for evidence....... Like I said, post evidence or else......

Subaru Legacy circa 2006
http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/200
Forester circa 2006
http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/197

Like I said..... the Forester and Impreza share their platform and mechanicals.

Post evidence or else you're just making stuff up

 

[306maxi]

I was curious as to how the Panda (a car widely regarded as being reliable) scored on that same site. It came 54th and the Forester 40th and Legacy 36th. Not bad for a supposedly unreliable brand I guess

 

[306maxi]

There's good and bad in both petrol and diesel. For me, diesel is the way to go as I do 25k+miles per year, a round trip to work is 55 miles. Thankfully, every car I've had has been totally reliable, barring the odd alternator etc. I wouldnt buy a diesel if i was only doing short local journeys though

Exactly My point was merely that with the way things have gone in the last few years that diesel is no longer the clear choice as it once was. Thankfully you don't seem to feel the need to be so defensive of diesel as some other people.

 

[dave]

Axle & Suspension 33.33%
Braking System 33.33%

think id prefer my dpf to break

dont see how warranty direct or other surveys play a part in this thread, it was about engines only petrol v diesel.

if either broke it wouldn't necessarily be covered under warranty so wont show in WD survey, its based on things they have had to pay for

 

[RuSZ]

Maxi... Pretty sure I asked you for evidence early to prove that diesel less reliable than petrol.. But you never supplied any.

Rule 1: stick to your own rules.

 

[306maxi]

Maxi... Pretty sure I asked you for evidence early to prove that diesel less reliable than petrol.. But you never supplied any.

Rule 1: stick to your own rules.

I think you, like Andy have got the wrong end of the stick.

That's the thing I like about petrol engines as long as you don't thrash them and you maintain them properly then there's less to go wrong than with a diesel Other than coils, leads and maybe a sensor or two, I doubt much will go wrong with the engine on our 500 during its lifetime

Like I said, there's less to go wrong with a petrol. I have merely tried to say that modern diesels are more complex and prone to scary faults than previous ones. You can't deny that modern diesels have more to go wrong than older ones......

 

[dave]

Like I said, there's less to go wrong with a petrol. I have merely tried to say that modern diesels are more complex and prone to scary faults than previous ones. You can't deny that modern diesels have more to go wrong than older ones......

so we all got the wrong end of stick, you were saying diesels have more to go wrong than a petrol,
people asked you to list the parts and you included turbos, i then pointed out that turbos are not only fitted to diesels ( what you replied was silly, was more silly to include it in the list, especially as more and more small petrol engine cars are coming out with them as standard)


now you seem to be comparing new to old diesels.

we need a list of all parts exclusive to a modern diesel and all parts exclusive to a modern petrol, that could break.
also a list of parts for each that should be replaced in the engines first 3-5 years of life as part of service and the cost.
then we will know what end of the stick we are supposed to be grabbing hold of.

 

[AndyRKett]

I think you, like Andy have got the wrong end of the stick.



Like I said, there's less to go wrong with a petrol. I have merely tried to say that modern diesels are more complex and prone to scary faults than previous ones. You can't deny that modern diesels have more to go wrong than older ones......

This is a thread about diesel versus petrol not modern diesel versus old diesel I want proof that a modern diesel is as you are suggesting by your argument in this thread, is any less reliable than a modern petrol?

Less to go wrong with petrol cars is rubbish! Many have sophisticated variable valve timing, and electronic systems for controlling spark timing fuel air mixture and delivery vapour reclamation etc etc, the Twinair is a perfect example of an extremely complex petrol engine and by your own argument is far more complex and liable to failure than any of the current and most complex Diesel engines. The twin air also has lots of small electro-mechanical parts which increase the likelihood of failure, yet this is the way petrol engines are going so I expect to see many more using this technology soon.

Sorry but all your arguments are invalid modern Diesel engines are no more complex than modern petrol engines, as Dave says many more are turning to turbos to get big engine power out of smaller petrol cars, a Diesel engine will always win on reliability DPF or not, unless you have proof to the contrary like a few million petrol powered vans trucks and tractors

 

[Andy Monty]

Chased him off with a spade and called the cops, they told me it was the latest crime wave against cars due to the cash in price of the precious metals inside them.

bet that would have been funny to watch :devil:

 

[StevenRB45]

Perhaps we should say complexity is the enemy of reliability and leave it there...or alternatively argue round in circles forever. Use a modern diesel wrong for lots of short trips you'll knacker it...use a petrol wrong....ie to do 50k a year it'll bankrupt you in fuel.

Could say that petrol turbos are simpler parts than diesel ones until the last Porsche 911 turbo there were no mass produced variable vane petrol turbos due to the heat of the exhaust...while on a diesel they are common.

 

[306maxi]

Christ almighty, this is getting ridiculous....

 

[dave]

we need a list of all parts exclusive to a modern diesel and all parts exclusive to a modern petrol, that could break.

actually not really fair to ask 1 person to do this, shall we start a copy and paste then add to list:idea:
what are we calling modern up to 5 years old or newer?

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

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!

Your calculations cannot be correct. I also do 50 miles a day. Return around 52mpg average on my Bravo and fill up every 12 days approx also having done 600-650 miles at £75 (£5~). So how can you do same / less mpg, same mileage and have £30 cheaper fill each time

 

[dave]

.use a petrol wrong....ie to do 50k a year it'll bankrupt you in fuel.

i thought some modern petrols do 80 mpg or more now? am sure i see an advert for one

 

[StevenRB45]

You been reading fiats advertising for the twin air?....

It's a good 75% lies....then again KIA advertise the Rio 1.1d as doing 80 odd mpg so they arent the only ones playing the system considering most road tests of that car struggle to better 50 mpg...

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Maxi... Pretty sure I asked you for evidence early to prove that diesel less reliable than petrol.. But you never supplied any.

Rule 1: stick to your own rules.

What maxi said was a summary of personal experience, resulting in an opinion wasn't it?

What Andy stated was quote of a data set, so it wasn't to unreasonable to as for a link.



I think the who reliability thing has been taken a tad out of context. I think what bring up the 'modern diesels are less reliable that petrols' assumption is more that they're normally a lot more expensive to fix when they go wrong.

It also seems to be the same thing time and time again, DPF, EGR etc. where as petrols always seem to be very varied, and in a way perhaps this brings the idea of diesels being more unreliable as its always the same issue that keep coming up again and again.

 

[dave]

You been reading fiats advertising for the twin air?....

It's a good 75% lies....then again KIA advertise the Rio 1.1d as doing 80 odd mpg so they arent the only ones playing the system considering most road tests of that car struggle to better 50 mpg...

what does an alto do in real world?

 

[RuSZ]

What maxi said was a summary of personal experience, resulting in an opinion wasn't it?

What Andy stated was quote of a data set, so it wasn't to unreasonable to as for a link.

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.