Thread: Diesels not an economic choice?

That's crap!
Diesel is the economical choice! Should surprise me if only Oz should make an exception.

I'm not sure where you are Johannes, but in Australia, diesel is generally 10 cents/litre (or more) more expensive than petrol.

Ron

Diesel is, as you say, generally about 10c/l more expensive than petrol, or in current terms round here about 6% more expensive. However, while it is not possible to be exact, as there is rarely a direct comparison, the fuel economy of diesels is usually more like 30-50% less than the same vehicle with a petrol engine, so on fuel costs, you are way ahead. The difference in initial cost can be quite significant, but this is usually offset by the difference in depreciation (see for example the current difference in second hand prices between petrol and diesel Discoveries), and remember that depreciation is almost always by far the greatest cost of owning/running a vehicle. There are other advantages to diesel over petrol engines apart from fuel costs, these include longer range, usually longer before engine overhaul, usually greater reliability and lower maintenance, and safer fuel handling and more readily available fuel away from towns.

Having said all the above, by far the cheapest fuel is LPG, but this is a unique Australian position due to an unusual excise situation, which may change at any time at the stroke of a pen (well, it may take an act of parliament). This is offset by the cost of conversion (payback is around a year in most circumstances), often the loss of interior or luggage space, loss of range with the added problem of inability to readily carry extra fuel and the rarity of LPG supply points away from the major centres.

From a purely theoretical point of view, it can be expected that diesels will always win out in the fuel consumption stakes as the energy efficiency of the engine is always greater simply because of the higher compression ratio - which will always be much higher than petrol engines. Whether this translates into cheaper running costs depends on a host of variables, as indicated above. The comments made by the Ford VP may apply to Ford passenger cars in the unique situation of Ford as a company, but I would suggest that he look at his sales of light commercials, where costs are taken into account much more than in car sales, and I suspect he will find that there is a majority of diesels sold. His comments may have more to do with the fact that Ford does not have a suitable diesel that would suit the Falcon and cost any where near the current engines to produce. From their point of view LPG would make a lot more sense.

Yep I read this article and interpreted it as the cost of making the diesel would price it right out the market. Don't forget the type of market they are aiming at. A lot of Australia is still not convinced that diesel should be anywhere other than trucks.

Anyone with a petrol/gas series 2 discovery auto getting 800km from 90lts around the city? My Td5 gets this easily. Who woud believe diesels are not economic. What price does it cost to service a petrol compared to an oil burner?

Never forget those guys who write up the magazines are often biased to their advertisers .

Originally Posted by p38arover

Saturday's Cars Guide, in a story about the Ford Territory Turbo quotes Ford's VP product development as saying :
Ron

Would this have been the Aussie VP of development? If he was a yank then from their perspective its probably worse given the apparent price of petrol in the states.


Martyn

Originally Posted by barryj

Anyone with a petrol/gas series 2 discovery auto getting 800km from 90lts around the city? My Td5 gets this easily. Who woud believe diesels are not economic. What price does it cost to service a petrol compared to an oil burner?

Never forget those guys who write up the magazines are often biased to their advertisers .

That equates to 90 litre @$1.30 per litre = $117 per tank
howerver, LPG 90 litres @ 44.5c per litre = $40.04

I use 20 litres per 100 kms on Lpg, so 800 kms range would use 160 litres @44.5CPL = $71.20, THATS A SAVING OF $45.80 FOR THAT DISTANCE COVERED.
SO IS DIESAL STILL CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN?

Originally Posted by Rovernaut

That equates to 90 litre @$1.30 per litre = $117 per tank
howerver, LPG 90 litres @ 44.5c per litre = $40.04

I use 20 litres per 100 kms on Lpg, so 800 kms range would use 160 litres @44.5CPL = $71.20, THATS A SAVING OF $45.80 FOR THAT DISTANCE COVERED.
SO IS DIESAL STILL CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN?

Find LPG in an average small country town.

Of course the VP of Ford would say a V8 is better (I could bet my left nut he wouldn't be paying for his fuel) All the europian companies developing Diesels must be wrong, same with all the transport industries worldwide, public transport industries, marine industries, agriculture industries, mining industries, Guess what, they must all be making a quid otherwise they wouldn't keep using diesel.

I love the sound of a v8, I've owned one (on LPG) before I got a disco td5. I'd prefer the td5 anyday.