I have a 2.2 petrol Signum and a 2.0 diesel Mondeo estate. The fuel cost per mile is currently the same for both at a smidge over 10p.
I like driving both of them for different reasons. The diesel relies on lazy torque and seems to shrug off heavy loads without a thought. On a long run you don't have to stop to fill up so often either. The petrol one, however, feels much more responsive and instills much greater confidence when overtaking. It is also much quieter and smoother.
I like them both but there is now nothing to choose between them when it comes to fuel costs.
Don't tell anyone though. The received wisdom abounding means there are some great bargains to be had on petrol cars at the moment......
;-)
|
Don't tell anyone though. The received wisdom abounding means there are some great bargains to be had on petrol cars at the moment......
Not for much longer - Mandleson is about to announce a bail-out of the car industry using tax-payers' money to force us all to buy new cars :)
|
I think the cost advantage for diesel increases as the car gets larger.
For superminis such as madf's Yaris example, where even the petrol version sips fuel, I can well believe that the diesel option doesn't save you anything.
Diesel costs are much easier to justify if you're lugging a couple of tonnes around where the extra weight doesn't seem to sap fuel economy as much as it would with a petrol engine. Diesels are also far more efficient when idling in traffic, or in stop/start conditions than petrol engines, and burn much less fuel when warming up.
I agree there are too many variables to say definitively which is the cost effective choice.
|
Did the tabloid newspaper get its information from here?
www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/faq.htm?id=113
HJ
|
I read the story in today's Daily Mail.
Some of the fuel consumption figures are a bit far fetched, a BMW petrol doing 39mpg, I should coco. My last petrol car did 24mpg, my diesel will do over 40mpg on short runs.
I prefer diesel cars, especially when driving in France where the diesel costs much less than the petrol.
PS The Daily Mail also says that drinking coffee while pregnant can harm the baby! and house prices are falling! and the country is going to hell in a handcart.
|
Wasn't that "drinking coffee while pregnant can cause house price to fall"?
|
|
>>> The diesel relies on lazy torque and seems to shrug off heavy loads without a thought. On a long run you don't have to stop to fill up so often either. The petrol one, however, feels much more responsive and instills much greater confidence when overtaking. It is also much quieter and smoother <<<
Oddly since switching to diesel (Passat 130 and now Mondeo) I find I much prefer diesel grunt for instant overtaking shove, both on single-carriageway roads and motorways.
Last petrol car was a Volvo V40 2.0T which was quite grunty itself, but it didn't have the toe-and-go of the Passat or Mondy.
All personal preference, isn't it?
|
I've just been testing a 1.0 65PS petrol Suzuki Splash against a 1.3 75PS diesel version, both £35 tax. The diesel costs £2k more, yet only offers a few mpg more on more expensive fuel and no real performance advantage. I had to conclude that the 1.0 petrol made far more sense than the 1.3 diesel before DMFs and DPFs and the danger of misfuelling were even considered.
HJ
|
It took us precisely 30 seconds to do a similar comparison with the Aygo petrol and diesel - Toyota also realised the diesel was a non starter and subsequently dropped it.
The only people who should be buying brand new small cars with diesels are driving instructors.
|
|
But the margin on a 3 or 4 year old version of the car actually makes the diesel a better buy... its only the extortionate loading on the diesel that makes it too expensive... I also looked at the C1 and noted that Citroen only sold the diesel in the top spec making it even more pricey... a two year old version, though, was virtually the same price...
|
|
|
|
I think this is an absolutely reasonable conclusion when considering a small car. The on-cost of the diesel engine is a largish proportion of the total, the fuel savings are marginal and in my experience, a diesel installation has to be very carefully done in a small body to achieve acceptable noise and vibration levels. PSA were always good at this.
The picture changes considerably with a large heavy vehicle, especially if you tow. I tow a heavy trailer and hate SUVs. I have a large VAG diesel saloon to do the job - which it does splendidly. The diesel prime mover can provide the broad spread of low (engine) speed torque necessary to tow the trailer in comfort. Using a lower gear with a petrol engine just doesn't work as the road speed range per gear is far too restricted. When unhitched, the big diesel car can achieve 60 mpg or 800 miles to a tank if you're very careful.
Without writing a book, the diesel has the fundamental advantages of higher thermal efficiency coupled with the ability to burn its fuel at a variable air/fuel ratio. There is no "throttle" on a diesel; the engine gets all the air it can volumetrically shift. Thus, you have a choice - lots of low speed torque for towing or very economical unhitched driving if you want it.
Suits me fine. Pity the politicians made Cat IV> diesels not worth owning.
659.
|
When I was considering my current car, I made up a spreadsheet to compare the Petrol and Diesel versions of the car. It took into account every possible fixed and variable from purchase price, insurance, servicing, fuel prices, mpg etc and a field to input annual mileage.The output was an overall annual running cost. It was interesting to see how the two compared for varying annual mileages. For my 12K - 14K it was pretty much even so I chose the petrol!
I find it interesting to hear people talk about the low down torque that diesels have, allowing lazy driving. For business trips I drive a Mondeo 2.0 TDCI. Below 30mph in 4th gear there is nothing and I find myself getting caught out in town, having to scrabble for third every time I drop below 30mph. This is because my own little Mazda 2 1.3 TS will pootle along and pull from 1200 rpm in fourth where the Mondeo won't do this for another 800 rpm or so. The Mazda obviously doesn't have the ultimate performance of the Mondeo but as a town car it wins this battle for me.
|
What about finance costs? The savings by buying petrol can go towards investment and investment yields (let say +5% p.a.)
At best, the extra costs in buying a diesel car ties up extra capital which in future terms worth less due the discounted cash flow model (let say -2% p.a.). At worst, you have to pay interests on borrowings which can be 8% p.a., leading to -10% in total.
So the difference can be quite large (15% in the example above)
|
|
Only on new cars and only if there is a difference in price between the same models in diesel and petrol... and where are you getting 5%pa at the moment???
|
... and where are you getting 5%pa at the moment???
Last year? Gold, platium, currency, when bank's CAR looks abnormal and considering shorting it, etc. The list goes on.
Whenever the market moves, there are gains and losses to be made but it will be thinking out of the box and spending a small % of your investment in it. Be knowledgeable and study what you know best and read facts from news, not opinion as anyone's opinion will be bias (including me)
|
|
|
|
My brother chose a diesel Panda for his second car because the petrols available at the time didn't have enough poke.
You could call it 'motorwayability', which the 1.2 petrols lack.
Yet people prefer their small cars to be petrol, so a s/h diesel Panda is often the same price and can be cheaper than a petrol of the same age and mileage.
|
>>For me it's not about the cost but rather the pleasure of driving a diesel.<<
That is the best giggle I have had in years.
I cannot see any pleasure in driving a diesel - they are noisy, unrefined, they have no rev range, they are complicated, more unreliable due to this complexity and becoming even more so, the fuel is more expensive.
But this has already been done on another thread - I know.
|
That is the best giggle I have had in years.>>
Do you giggle at all choices that are different to yours?
|
|
No - just the ones where people think driving diesels is enjoyable.
|
No - just the ones where people think driving diesels is enjoyable.
As an example I would find it infinitely more enjoyable than watching a load of over-paid mincers dance around a pitch chasing a ball.
|
|
Complexity / reliability concerns aside, I think Pendlebury last drove a diesel in 1963 ;-)
I actually find most modern four cylinder petrol engines utterly characterless and forgettable.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 27/01/2009 at 20:29
|
|
DP since having turbo petrol and turbo diesel I won't go back to a normally aspirated (i.e. inflexible) petrol car ;-) I chose the Passat 1.8T in 2000 because emissions were low for the time.
|
That's a good one DP - if we put aside the fact that diesels are more complex and break down more or suffer more expensive reliability problems then you think they are ok.
Every one goes on about character and how you get that initial rush of torque (and then nothing after that) - well guys I may have news for some of you but that is the turbo and if you put a turbo on a petrol engine - you also get torque plus power - something that you run out of very quickly in most diesels.
|
|
I cannot see any pleasure in driving a diesel
Have you driven a modern diesel? Thought not.
With companies getting over 270bhp from 3litre diesels and more accessible 2.2 diesels with 180PS+ then why can't they be fun. My Mazda diesel is very refined.
Question: What diesels have you driven that were made since say 2006 (for arguments sake)?
|
|
|
>>For me it's not about the cost but rather the pleasure of driving a diesel.<< That is the best giggle I have had in years. I cannot see any pleasure in driving a diesel - they are noisy unrefined they have no rev range
Agree i drive a astra envoy 1.7CDTI on a(56) for my courier work and a 1.6 petrol focus as the family car.The diesel runs out of steam after 4000rpm where as the petrol will still pull upto 5500rpm.The focus is quiter more refined and quicker and does around 40mpg brim to brim.I dont drive the astra through choice comes with the job if i did it would go.
|
>>The diesel runs out of steam after 4000rpm>>
If you rev a diesel beond 4000rpm I respectfully suggest you get someone to teach you how to drive a diesel.
|
Ooohh my
This is turning into a bit of a bun fight isn't it? :D
Having bought a diesel for the first time last July, I have to say I'm really liking it. I bought it when diesel was 129.99p per litre, so filling up at 96.9p makes it feel as cheap as chips! It's a Seat Leon with the VAG PD 2 litre turbo. Thing is, under the VAG range, I didn't want any of the petrol engines anyways. The FSI engines have been highlighted on here as having possible injector problems at around 60,000 miles, and the cheaper running of a petrol engine would be negated by having to use the higher octane petrol that the FSI engine prefers.
It is noisy at idle and a bit slow off the mark (mainly due to the fact that I don't want to thrash it due to possible clutch wear), but since most of my driving is on motorways and country roads, that's rarely a problem.
I have to say, that I don't think I've ever got anywhere near 4000rpm in my driving. Dropping down to 4th/5th and booting it past cars on country roads doesn't take it anywhere near the red-line at all.
I intend to keep this car for many years, and then see what is happening in the market. I'm not totally taken with the complexities of common rail diesels. The VAG TSI engine does sound interesting, but it's early days yet. I'm more than happy to let someone else do the testing for a few years first.
|
|
|
The last cars that I have had longer than a couple of days (i.e. discount the hire or loan cars) have been low pressure turbo petrol (VAG 1.8T) and common rail diesel (Ford 130PS and Mazda 143PS).
I like the diesels characteristics a lot for driving. But I also thought a 150PS 1.8T was okay. At the moment if I work out the cost difference on lower personal miles than expected a Mazda 2.0 diesel is cheaper for me than a 2.0 petrol.
Next car might be a forced induction petrol again though. e.g. 1.8TSi or 1.4TSi VAG cars.
|
Gosh the "pleasure" factor.
My diesel car is a very relaxing easy thing to live with. Comfortable, reliable, predictable. I am very fond of it. Almost like a good marriage.
My petrol car is more fun. Harder work sometimes but can be thrilling when asked. I am also fond of it. It does though, have more of the personality of a mistress.
Depends on your mood I think.
( not that I would know about mistresses I hasten to....)
Hate going over speed humps in either of them. Did I mention that before ?
|
|
|
>>Have you driven a modern diesel? Thought not. <<
I drove a 57 plate 320D yesterday - see - thought so !!
As diesels go it is refined but nothing like a smooth petrol engine.
I was also passenger in a 2.0TDI A3 with a DSG box - once my ears stopped bleeding... only joking but I have to say it was very rough.
OK it has some torque but having followed friends and family with diesel cars I never need to stress my petrol car to keep up with them on overtaking manoeuvres etc - although I do sometimes have to keep a distance to let the black smoke disappear.
Anybody above that thinks complex diesels were only made way in the past is showing a level of naivety and mis-understanding of the complexity of modern diesel engines I'm afraid. The opposite is true of course in that in 1963 diesels were very basic in their design.
|
>>I actually find most modern four cylinder petrol engines utterly characterless and forgettable. <<
Can you explain what you mean by character DP ?
|
Can you explain what you mean by character DP ?
In essence I find many of them flat, over-silenced and lifeless. They sound and pull the same at 6k as they do at 4k, throttle mapping seems to knock the response out of them in favour of smoothness, and there's just no joy to be had from working them hard. The rev counter might red line at 6.5k but really it's pointless going there.
In use, and from inside the cabin, the noise levels of diesel and petrol engines are largely indistinguishable to most people, and that as far as I am concerned is the end of petrol's big advantage. I hate the sound of a diesel engine, but now I no longer have to put up with it unless I'm ticking over with the window down. Otherwise I have a gutsy, responsive engine that shrugs off my NCAP weighted bodyshell and the four big geezers riding passenger in a way that an equivalent petrol engine simply wouldn't.
Hope that makes at least some sense. :-)
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 28/01/2009 at 21:15
|
Let us stop talking utter tripe on modern diesels and return to the original question... modern diesels do not emit black smoke, overtaking is easy with the torque of a diesel etc etc.
Any more posts on noise, smoke, etc. on diesels will be removed. Back to the original thread's purpose :-)
|
That is your view rtj70 but I happen to think it is not tripe - HJ raised the point recently about the complexity of modern diesels - I agree the banter is flowing a bit - and this post is about the expense of diesels - but the attempts to cut down on the smoke etc are why the technology is complex and diesels are more expensive. None of what is being said is moving away from the intent of the OP.
Or maybe I misunderstand the rules of this forum.
Edited by Pendlebury on 27/01/2009 at 21:11
|
The discussion was not on complexity though was it :-) And this could be in another thread.
You are now changing your argument Pendlebury. It started out as they are unrefined, put out black smoke etc. Now it's diesels are complex. Yes a modern diesel is complex and I would not want to own one but I like them all the same. My alternative being maybe a super and turbo charged petrol engine from VAG is even more complex.
|
|
Of course if you has an old IDI Pug turbo that you ran on free, waste veg oil, you'd be smiling, like me... ;-)
|
My argument started out saying that "I cannot see any pleasure in driving a diesel - they are noisy, unrefined, they have no rev range, they are complicated....... so from the start I was saying they are complex.
But point taken - I will stick the rules.
Yes tawse diesel cars can be more expensive.
|
For a diesel (pre Euro V) they are not necessarily noisy or unrefined. At speed they can be quieter than a petrol. Revs is partly irrelevant for a modern powerful and torquey diesel too. But agree they are complex. Can be costly to fix too.
But at the moment I'd prefer a 2.0d 143PS Mazda6 with 360Nm torque to a 2.0 petrol 145PS with a lot less torque doing fewer MPG.
Even in sixth on the motorway, put your foot down and it accelerates without changing down.
Pity I cannot convince someone to let me have a good in a BMW 335d or 535d :-) By the time I am due a new car (October 2011) then I might like the idea of a VAG 1.4TSI or 1.8TSI but a 2.2 diesel will probably be 200PS by then! The 2.2d in the Mazda is about 185PS.
Edited by rtj70 on 27/01/2009 at 21:33
|
"Pity I cannot convince someone to let me have a good (go?) in a BMW 335d or 535d :-)"
Take it from me rtj, they are gems! Driven both recently and they are smooth, powerful and very refined. On starting they are virtually silent - there is no "clatter". This stuff about "limited rev range" doesn't work in practice because the gear ratios take care of that so that in driving you actually have to make fewer gear changes than in a petrol - and they "pick up" from very low revs very smoothly.
Also had an MSport 3 series which for a diesel had frightening power (and I suspect I used about a quarter of its potential power!)
Also very pleasantly surprised by a 520d which I thought might feel a little "underpowered" - nothing of the sort, and surprisingly economical - in 500 miles of mixed driving it did 46mpg.
Mind you, that Audi RS4 was an experience as well...................
|
I'm no longer a modern diesel enthusiast, and cost is just one of the reasons, not just in fuel as i think most of us with a fair minded outlook would agree that the fuelling costs are now very similar for most normal car motoring.
There will always be exceptions, stop start and heavy traffic will err in favour of the diesel for fuel, but possibly to the detriment of far more expensive parts that could suffer...DPF and DMF being 2 obvious ones.
I understand how some have become hooked on the torque of recent diesels, but they are invariably comparing a turbo diesel with a NA petrol of similar or smaller capacities, blindingly obvious that the diesel will have more power, but only in its peak torque band which with many engines is painfully narrow, use that power and the economy goes west with it, to me they are unpleasant to drive unless proper auto and then you need a large engine to have any initial grunt..MB or BMW 6 pots for example.
I really dislike having to constantly play the gearbox to make up for the engine's shortfalls.
Most 4 cyl 2 and 2.2 litre diesels wouldn't pull you out of bed until the turbo gets going, 150/180 hp they quote, but don't mention how much power at 1200rpm, and you mustn't slip the DMF'd clutch or thats a grand up your shirt.
I've been running diesels for donkeys years, from painfully underpowered NA engines, to our current Hilux 3.0 litre, it doesn't have a DPF and is a proper auto otherwise that wouldn't be on our driveway either.
If its still trouble free in 10 years time, i'll be surprised and happy, and probably doing time for owning a unapproved people's 4x4 comrade..;)
What i loved about the old school diesels has gone forever, simple mechanical pumps and injectors, most engines were fairly quiet with pre chambers helping to keep noise down.
Virtually no electronics, save for a set of easily replaced glow plugs, most of them you could bump start without a battery if you removed the stop solenoid, and the things would run for ever with good maintenance.
Injectors getting a bit tired?, slip them out and get them overhauled at a handy place i knew for about £40 the lot.
In those days the cost savings by running diesels was huge, and the decision was a no brainer.
Now it seems only new electronic injectors coded in will cure the fault guvnor, that'll be 2 grand please, guaranteed till the next problem which we'll throw umpteen expensive parts at till it seems better, starting with the pump, you only have to read the tech section here to get the wind up.
The worst thing about the modern diesel is the horrible racket they make (some exceptions), the driver coccooned inside may be unaware, but listen to the blasted things powering away, enough to make you cringe, and many stall at the drop of a hat.
|
I can well believe everything you say about older diesel engines, GB, but I was surprised when you said "most engines were fairly quiet with pre chambers helping to keep noise down."
Could you give us some examples of quieter older engines? All the ones I can think of, like the Perkins Prima in the Maestro, the original VW Golf mark I diesel and - above all - the unforgettable 1950s Commer lorry - were far noisier than modern engines.
|
- were far noisierthan modern engines.
Ah i nearly qualified by saying the VW's could be noisy, i had a mk1 Golf 1600 and though a fine car was indeed noisy, but one has to be careful round here saying anything against the VW brand..;)
The Perkins engine's i seem to remember were the first DI's, and were a noisy beast together with the Transits, no pre chambers.
Think of how relatively quiet the Ford 1.8 diesels could be, the Pug/Citroen XUD's and their 2.3/2.5 ohv as fitted to the 505 and Granada, Renaults 1.9 and 2.1 and most Japanese diesels, think of the Isuzu 1.7 in the Cavalier.
MB diesels were pretty quiet, but then 6 pot diesels tend to sound sweet anyway.
The Japanese 4x4 diesels were all pretty quiet until they started to DI them.
Oh and of course i couldn't let slip the opportunity of saying just how silent the wonderful Cummins 14 litre could be..;)
|
Well gb, I don't have much experience of most of these engines, but having driven XUDs (BX and Xantia from 1987 to 2003 and HDis (Xantia and Berlingo and C2) from 2002 I would say that the HDi is infinitely quieter than the XUD. My daughter has a Renault dCi which followed her 1.9d - dCi also much quieter. And as for the old 1.8 Ford - I think there might be one going along the by-pass a couple of miles away at the moment - sounds like it (or maybe it's a tractor!!)
I also disagree with your "nothing happens below 1200 revs" in a diesel. What happens in a petrol below those revs? - it won't even move off.
Opinions, opinions - at least it means we don't all drive round in identical cars!!
Regards
Phil
|
- at least it means we don't all drive round in identical cars!!
Remember you're comparing a new engine with an old one, whereas i'm using my now quite famous rose tinted spectacles, or in this case rose tinted hearing aid..;)
The Renault engines i'm afraid i was back in the 80's again as fitted to the 21's, the 2.1 was a very fine NA engine, and i thought very quiet and refined.
With the 1200rpm thing, i was comparing how old school diesels could still lug right down to stall speeds and pull away quite happily whereas the new versions will not have any of it.
At least in the BR we do have opinions, and most of mine are wrong..;)
|
I don't like doing it, but my Volvo petrol-turbo will pull quite happily from 1000rpm in fifth.
|
my Volvo petrol-turbo will pull quite happily from 1000rpm in fifth.
My Roomster will accelerate from 0 to 30 without me touching the throttle and just using the gears to speed up... but I'm not sure of any relevance to anything on here!
It makes me laugh when the petrolheads start going on about the complexity of a modern diesel... without mentioning that a modern petrol car is just as complicated... in fact in some cases even more so when they are trying to match the torque characteristics of a modern diesel... VAG TSi engine, anyone?
As for using revs above 4k on a diesel, I can only assume that the driver has only ever driven petrol cars and has no idea whatsoever how to drive a diesel car.... only time I exceeded 3500 in mine was when I was doing over 100mph on a derestriced bit of autobahn... there is plenty of push in the engine for overtaking betweeen 1200 and 3000 rpm thanks, don't even have to change down from 5th to get it either!
Edited by b308 on 28/01/2009 at 09:51
|
As for using revs above 4k on a diesel I can only assume that the driver has only ever driven petrol cars and has no idea whatsoever how to drive a diesel car....
I have been driving diesels for 15yrs in different vehicles from transits to car's and over 300k miles but as always you make a statment and use a example ie diesel's run out of steam past 4k people come back at you stating you dont know how to drive diesels because in my original post i did not state (example). Im sorry if offended all the diesel lovers.My point was you get the initial push of power with the help of the turbo then change gear but with a petrol you can hold the rev's longer and take them to the red line if you wish .I drive a diesel and petrol everyday and my preference is petrol.
|
diesel's run out of steam past 4k people come back at you stating you dont know how to drive diesels because in my original post i did not state (example).
Simply because you are trying to do a direct comparison between them when they are totally different to drive!! If you tried driving a sub 2L 4 cyl petrol engine like I drive my 1.9TDi you wouldn't get any power at all, but that doesn't make the petrol engine rubbish, its just different... But it would be a stupid comparison... Just the same as talking of red-lining and car in normal driving, it just doesn't happen unless you deliberately drive that way... and if you do then by all means buy a petrol as its more suitable, but I have never found the need to redline in day to day driving... If I went on track days, though, it would be a different kettle of fish!
Edited by b308 on 28/01/2009 at 11:40
|
Nothing ive read about modern diesels would ever convince me to buy one.
Old ones though, 1980's fare, yes please - rattly yes but I always found the chug chug noise rather comforting.
|
I've had a wide range of cars, including a Focus TDCi and I've driven my dad's CLK 270CDI as well as owning a BMW 323Ci (best petrol car I've ever owned) and a Mondeo V6 on LPG.
I have to say that for me, petrol or LPG is the way to go.
My dad's Merc is the best diesel I have driven and I found it lovely, powerful, smooth and quite relaxing to drive, it isn't terribly economical mind at about 30 -33mpg. For a £30K car I just wasn't as blown away with the engine as I should have been. My Focus was a dog's dinner of an engine, despite been the higher powered model I never got above 37 - 38mpg, it smoked badly and wasn't particularly quick.
My V6 Mondeo on the other hand is smooth, powerful, flexible (it pulls from very low revs, even lower than a diesel) and it costs me about 11p per mile in fuel when running on a combined cycle and with a very heavy right foot.
Roll on my next car which I fullly intend to be an Audi A8 4.2 V8 running on LPG.
|
Where's 'Numbercruncher' when you need him??? I'm sure there must be a formula to make the petrol vs diesel decision for you by inputting fuel costs, typical mileage etc.
The only thing it couldn't account for is 'preferred' driving characteristics, though surely the 'financial' perspective could be worked out.
|
What is this diesel unreliability you are all going on about? Never seen it. And this engine coarseness? Of course if you drive VAG, what can you expect?
And as I stated in my original post, most of my journeys are short distance. My experience of petrol engines and cats and exhaust systems is they curl up and die with stop/start/stop/get cold/start motoring.
So if this thread is to be meaningful, the running costs should be compared for petrol vs diesel in real world round town motoring.
Based on my experience: no contest. Diesel wins.. as under 3 mile journeys, 30 mpg out of a petrol Yaris is doing well. The diesel just does 55mpg.
I note the petrol lovers back up their claims with anything BUT facts..
(just like politicians).
Runs away and hides..
|
"I'm sure there must be a formula to make the petrol vs diesel decision for you by inputting fuel costs, typical mileage"
The newer the car, the more the depreciation/residuals have an influence, and right now residuals are all over the place, on both types, so it's hard to make an accurate assessment, I expect.
Reading this forum, it's also clear that not all diesels behave the same in terms of town/touring mpg, either.
It's probably fair to say that a high motorway mileage will suit a diesel better in terms of direct cost per mile, but so much depends on the purchase/residual, still. With year-old 1.8 Vectras going for £6,000 or less, you'd have a tough time doing high miles for less.
|
Isn't LPG likely to lose some or all of it's favourable tax status in 2010 ?
This may alter the longterm prospects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
