[RichJ]

330i for me

[dxb335d]

Originally Posted by acerboo

everyone seems to think you buy a diesel to save money, have to admit having a car that will do 10mpg more than the petrol equivelant is a bonus but for me its all about the effortless performance due to the massive torque. ive also found that diesel cars tend to easily make the claimed mpg figure whereas a petrol car struggles to get anywhere near it. i have a 330i and a 335d and regardless of the economy id take the d everytime.

Out of those two, your choice is a no brainer!!

[Kerr]

As I've said for a long time, the only diesel I actual want to try to settle the argument for myself is the 335d to see if it is significantly better than any other diesel out there.

It would need to be leagues ahead of the 330d to convince me that anything about the driving characteristics of any diesel is as good as a good petrol engined car.

Maybe the 335d is miles beyond any other diesel, but the rest really can't hold a candle and the only reason for me to purchase one would be big miles or tow. I do neither now.

I do appreciate the torque factor but I've got two driving styles, either just cruising along taking it easy and driving smoothly or just flat out where power matter most.

The more powerful diesels still give that big purge of torque when trying to make reasonable progress.

It gives you a sense of accelerating faster than you are and to be honest a lot of people, especially passengers, either don't like it or think the driver is a bit rough with the pedals.

Some people obviously choose the 335d for the right reason in their own head.

I will wait for one or two to sell it before giving an honest opinion.

I'd be interested to hear Mega's opinion in a few years time as he does appear to get wrapped up in his cars. The 320d was his dream car it seemed and it was only at the time of coming to sell it he confessed about the serious running issues.

Likewise the 350Z was the best thing ever. Giving Nissan GTRs a run for their money and sounding better than a Ferrari. Only once it was sold did we hear it was a pile of poo with huge problems and running about 40BHP under power.

I don't have a problem with people being passionate about their cars, it is just when their opinion gets impaired through shiny things a little too much to give a fair opinion and have to become too defensive, making exaggerated statements or not actually answering the point in question.

[dxb335d]

But who in your opinion has been like that? Who are you referring to?

I'm two years out of a 335d and have a N/A high revving gutless M3 and still rate the 335d.

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

But who in your opinion has been like that? Who are you referring to?

I'm two years out of a 335d and have a N/A high revving gutless M3 and still rate the 335d.

I've read what you have to say and accept your opinion.

I don't doubt it is a very good car to drive.

Mega has been one of the most vocal about the 335d singing its praises, but as I said like before all his cars were the best ever at the time and only later in the day does the truth come out.

His opinion seems a little carried away at the time.

[HighlandPete]

It is very clear that forum users don't always buy a car, or choose an engine based on running costs, but many motorists do. It is really for the 'follow the crowd' buyers that reports about perceived and actual running costs have a part to play.

But as to what engine we prefer, how it drives, etc., that doesn't change the facts that many users have got it wrong on the costs front. If we don't mind or even care, no issue.

I drive a 3.0-litre diesel, bought more for practical reasons than pure driving pleasure. I do like the way it gives its engine delivery, but having had a 540i V8, no way does a diesel give the same smile factor. I tried a 535d when driving the 540i and just found it was a very unrefined drive, compared to the V8. I must admit I prefer the petrol 335i/535i to the diesels, so sweet, refined and just rewards more than the diesels. I'm 95% convinced a petrol will be my next car, even if it does cost me more to run.

HighlandPete

[rsmallwo]

sold,

im gunna start using petrol instead. 335d's love it :P

you can't argue with physics. diesel is more explosive than petrol for the same volume of fuel. hence it will always give u better mpg in a resonably efficient engine. There can be endless arguments about the relative efficiency of engines.

doesn't the 550d rev to 5.5k yet stays fuel efficient (bhp vs mpg)

leave Mega alone, he drives his car the way it should be driven...hes still safe to everyone else on the road....just

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by rsmallwo

sold,

im gunna start using petrol instead. 335d's love it :P

you can't argue with physics. diesel is more explosive than petrol for the same volume of fuel. hence it will always give u better mpg in a resonably efficient engine. There can be endless arguments about the relative efficiency of engines.

doesn't the 550d rev to 5.5k yet stays fuel efficient (bhp vs mpg)

leave Mega alone, he drives his car the way it should be driven...hes still safe to everyone else on the road....just

Not sure what physics you work to.

Petrol is vastly more explosive than diesel.

[poggy]

In the marine industry, there is currently a push towards cleaner fuels (from heavy fuel oil which is not diesel). Some research being done at the moment is showing that the refining capacity of diesel in Europe is already at breaking point because of the demand. What this means is that should demand for diesel cars increase further, there will become shortages of the fuel in Europe and the price will rocket. The switch in the marine market of course will make things worse. What you may argue is that they would increase refining capacity but the investment to do this is vast and won't happen over night so the relative cost of diesel vs petrol will widen which won't help diesel car residuals.

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by poggy

In the marine industry, there is currently a push towards cleaner fuels (from heavy fuel oil which is not diesel). Some research being done at the moment is showing that the refining capacity of diesel in Europe is already at breaking point because of the demand. What this means is that should demand for diesel cars increase further, there will become shortages of the fuel in Europe and the price will rocket. The switch in the marine market of course will make things worse. What you may argue is that they would increase refining capacity but the investment to do this is vast and won't happen over night so the relative cost of diesel vs petrol will widen which won't help diesel car residuals.

I've been saying similar for a while now.

Once other markets bite into diesel, which is slowly happening, there is going to be less diesel available for us to import. The price will keep rising far quicker than petrol.

From the refining process 40% ends up as petrol and 23% diesel and the UK is way too dependant on diesel supplies from imports.

[phil200tdi]

The 550d is a good example:

A 550i is £55k with 445bhp/480lb/ft and does 28mpg.

A 550d is £68k with 380bhp/546lb/ft and 44mpg.

It would cost £750 more to fuel the petrol over 10,000miles per year. So it would take 17 years to pay back this initial price differential.

[gangzoom]

Originally Posted by Kerr

Likewise the 350Z was the best thing ever. Giving Nissan GTRs a run for their money and sounding better than a Ferrari. Only once it was sold did we hear it was a pile of poo with huge problems and running about 40BHP under power.

The Z is no GTR or Ferrari, and yes early versions didn't achieve quoted BHPs, but has so much more character than any Z4/TT, and yes I've driven both. If the Z is a pile of poo than most others cars much be the skid marks left behind when the poo is flushed away

But regarding the actual thread, most people buy diesels because of better mpg and the need to do big miles. That's why my wife bought a Civic diesel and not a petrol Alfa GT. Still it does the job, nearly 50K in just over 2 years with average mpg of nearly 40. Just a shame it rattles like a tractor and has power and that lasts for 1k rpm.

[chris_s1]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

The 550d is a good example:

A 550i is £55k with 445bhp/480lb/ft and does 28mpg.

A 550d is £68k with 380bhp/546lb/ft and 44mpg.

It would cost £750 more to fuel the petrol over 10,000miles per year. So it would take 17 years to pay back this initial price differential.

But does anyone do 10k/year anymore? I manage about 30k/yr and I don't feel like thats a lot. My wife does more than 10k/yr just running around town and trips to see family.......

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by gangzoom

But regarding the actual thread, most people buy diesels because of better mpg and the need to do big miles. That's why my wife bought a Civic diesel and not a petrol Alfa GT. Still it does the job, nearly 50K in just over 2 years with average mpg of nearly 40. Just a shame it rattles like a tractor and has power and that lasts for 1k rpm.

Exactly, tools for a job. But when folks buy a diesel at a premium price and only intend to drive it to the shops and drive say 5 - 8k miles a year, based on some crazy headline grabbing mpg figure, the sums just don't add up.

OK, we may say someone is very shallow to buy on the mpg figure alone, but many folks do. Read the forum reviews across the marques, where users are so up tight about not getting the 65mpg figure or whatever they were promised, often believing they will achieve the extra urban figure, as they've read the "up to 65mpg" hype.

There's a bit of human nature which comes in as well, the bulking feeling we have when fuelling a car. I'm aware of users selling cars simply because they can't stomach the thought of say 30mpg against 35mpg. But the losses they are willing to take to change to the 35mpg vehicle so that they "feel comfortable", can run in to £1,000's, never to be recovered.

I've personally been in discussion on this with users. One who took a massive hit on a trade in, to buy what was really an inferior diesel just to get a better feeling at the pumps. If the petrol had been kept and run for the duration of intended ownership, it would have been far better to drive and enjoy and still cheaper, (residual included) even with the perceived waste at the pumps.

HighlandPete

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by chris_s1

But does anyone do 10k/year anymore? I manage about 30k/yr and I don't feel like thats a lot. My wife does more than 10k/yr just running around town and trips to see family.......

Yes, and the average is reducing for many private buyers. Many folks run diesels doing less than 8k miles per year.

HighlandPete

[Kerr]

The average is still less than 12k a year.

The biggest taxi firm up here in Aberdeen has been replacing all its diesel cars as they have worked out petrol cars are more cost effective.

It is a fleet of Toyota Avensis they are using now.

So even if doing bigger miles, the diesels still have to be used in the best way to be beneficial.

[rsmallwo]

Originally Posted by Kerr

Not sure what physics you work to.

Petrol is vastly more explosive than diesel.

Hmmm, I might not have worded it correctly. I did think that from a Physics point of view, Diesel contains more energy than petrol for the same volume of fluid. See quote ripped from internets:

"Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines"

YEs, a simplistic source but its still true:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/diesel3.htm

[dakhu1]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Exactly, tools for a job. But when folks buy a diesel at a premium price and only intend to drive it to the shops and drive say 5 - 8k miles a year, based on some crazy headline grabbing mpg figure, the sums just don't add up.

OK, we may say someone is very shallow to buy on the mpg figure alone, but many folks do. Read the forum reviews across the marques, where users are so up tight about not getting the 65mpg figure or whatever they were promised, often believing they will achieve the extra urban figure, as they've read the "up to 65mpg" hype.

There's a bit of human nature which comes in as well, the bulking feeling we have when fuelling a car. I'm aware of users selling cars simply because they can't stomach the thought of say 30mpg against 35mpg. But the losses they are willing to take to change to the 35mpg vehicle so that they "feel comfortable", can run in to £1,000's, never to be recovered.

I've personally been in discussion on this with users. One who took a massive hit on a trade in, to buy what was really an inferior diesel just to get a better feeling at the pumps. If the petrol had been kept and run for the duration of intended ownership, it would have been far better to drive and enjoy and still cheaper, (residual included) even with the perceived waste at the pumps.

HighlandPete

A very interesting thread and one i am following with keen interest!

A very valid comment by Highland Pete - I drive a remapped Mk4 GTi and the wife a 320d, and fully get that feel-good factor when fuelling the tractor and getting loads of miles, quickly forgetting the premium I paid when I bought it.

Currently thinking of sawapping out to an e60 and based on the wife's car was leaning towards a diesel but will have to consider the 'total' true running cost! That said, there is no-doubting that diesels hold value better and are a lot easier to sell

[xs2man]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Exactly, tools for a job. But when folks buy a diesel at a premium price and only intend to drive it to the shops and drive say 5 - 8k miles a year, based on some crazy headline grabbing mpg figure, the sums just don't add up.

OK, we may say someone is very shallow to buy on the mpg figure alone, but many folks do. Read the forum reviews across the marques, where users are so up tight about not getting the 65mpg figure or whatever they were promised, often believing they will achieve the extra urban figure, as they've read the "up to 65mpg" hype.

There's a bit of human nature which comes in as well, the bulking feeling we have when fuelling a car. I'm aware of users selling cars simply because they can't stomach the thought of say 30mpg against 35mpg. But the losses they are willing to take to change to the 35mpg vehicle so that they "feel comfortable", can run in to £1,000's, never to be recovered.

I've personally been in discussion on this with users. One who took a massive hit on a trade in, to buy what was really an inferior diesel just to get a better feeling at the pumps. If the petrol had been kept and run for the duration of intended ownership, it would have been far better to drive and enjoy and still cheaper, (residual included) even with the perceived waste at the pumps.

HighlandPete

To be fair, you can kind of lump me in this boat.

In March I bought a brand new A4 Avant TDI Quattro 2.0 TDI 177 BHP. I did this because my current A4 avant at the time (a 2.0 TDI 143 BHP) was returning only 40 mpg on the combined run. I was expecting closer to 45 mpg from that car, and blamed the auto box in it for the loss of economy.

To be honest, that car was needing a grands worth of servicing, and was due its first MOT etc... I also wanted to retrofit cruise as it didn't have it, and its something I use often.

So, basically, for the cost of the things were needing done, this covered the deposit for the new car. The "increase" in mpg on the combined cycle was "meant" to be 7 mpg between models, taking me to roughly 45-47 mpg, where I wanted to be, and would pay for half the increase in monthly payments, with the amount of miles I do every month. The other half would just be justified to be driving a brand new car, with the spec I wanted. Fair enough.

This isn't my point though.

When I got the car, and ran it, the fuel consumption was considerably worse. In fact, over the 3.5 months and around 4k miles, I only averaged around 35 mpg. So actually around 10 mpg less than I had anticipated. And around 18 mpg less than the official figures for combined cycle. I obviously wasn't expecting the official figures, but did expect an increase.

Anyway, not happy with this, I decided to move it on. I could have went for the 320d, and got figures closer to what I was actually expecting. But, that would have meant loosing (/costing) thousands of pounds to be where I felt I should have already been.

So I chopped it in for my current 335d. So I have a 2 year old car now, instead of brand new. It has 18k instead of 4k on it, and it doesn't get me any better fuel economy than the A4 did.

What it does give me is an extra 100+ BHP for my cost to change though. This makes the bitter pill of loosing ££££'s easier to swallow.

[phil200tdi]

Compare the amount of cash you will lose during your ownership and not the percentage drop.

I.e. when I bought my 335i, I paid £17k. The equivalent 335d was £23k. Hence although my car is now only worth £12k vs the diesels £17k I have lost less in cash terms. The gap between the two will continue to close as they depreciate further.

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

Compare the amount of cash you will lose during your ownership and not the percentage drop.

I.e. when I bought my 335i, I paid £17k. The equivalent 335d was £23k. Hence although my car is now only worth £12k vs the diesels £17k I have lost less in cash terms. The gap between the two will continue to close as they depreciate further.

Factor interest paid on that extra 6k too when on finance.

[Dave_3]

I was not concerned in the slightest or was even bothered to actually try and work out if I would save money by buying a 335D instead of a 335i.

I simply preferred the 335D.

It has worked out twice as efficient as my previous car, for something that accelerates more effortlessly. Even if it had worked out the same on fuel consumption I would still prefer my 335D.

If I take on board what has been put forward here, if I was bothered more about the pennies and efficiency it would appear that my choice should be a 335i.

But I am sure none of the 335i owners actually bought their cars because they thought it would work out more cost effective. Unless I am wrong and your prime objective actually was about fuel economy and depreciation when chosing what to buy ? Come on.

You bought it because you preferred it. Like I did.

If you were really that concerned about fuel economy and depreciation you would have bought a tiny totty little used car, never a new 335i or 335D. Simples. So the article is not very pertinent to 335i/D drivers.

D.