Thread: What is better, diesel or petrol and why?

Originally Posted by Sitec

How'd ya work that out?? There's no comparison. A petrol Pacific Golf has a smaller purchase price yeah, but it uses more fuel, has a higher depreciation value, will only last half the kms the diesel will, and is no match for the equivalent diesel Golf. We have two diesel Golfs.. One is a 1990 MK 2 GTD with 500000kms on the clock. Its still my daily drive, does 5lt/100kms and goes as well as a V6 Commode. The wife's is a 2013 GTD DSG, and it does 5.5lt/100kms, goes like hell, will give a V8 Commode a run for its money and has done 70000 faultless miles in the first 15 months of ownership. Yes diesels have expensive injectors etc, but if they are serviced as per book, and looked after they will outlive any petrol. They have supreme torque and IMO improve a car. I've removed the thirsty lazy V8 out of the 101 and fitted a 6 pot diesel.. Yeah, it's bigger and heavier... but it is using half the fuel the V8 was and has twice the power. Diesel requires less refining, is less flammable, is more readily available world over. Diesel engines (some) can run on veg oil, and all but the wife's car here regularly do! (Before anyone starts the bio fuel debate, don't.. There's other threads for that!). So, I may have been dragged up in a country that's been diesel savy for years, so I might be biased, but IMO diesel is the only way to go. If Holden had realised this 10 yrs ago and put an alloy V6 turbo diesel in the Commode, I think they'd have probably sold a lot more cars.... and have a more secure future. All just my thoughts.... IMO their is only one option. Diesel all he way!

Same experience here. Having been around small diesel cars in Europe for the whole quarter century that I have been driving, they make perfect sense.

I have a MkVI Golf 1.6Td. It will happily out accelerate our 3.2 V6 Mercedes ML, and can easily embarrass other cars at the lights.

And it uses 3.8l/100km (the best I had over my 40km commute was 3.3l/100km) compared to the 5.5 of the 1.4turbo petrol in the current range. So nearly 50% less fuel use, though it costs more to buy, but has a higher residual. When I bought mine, there was a $1500 difference between the diesel and equivalent petrol. I have recouped that price difference in 3 years and 60,000km, just with fuel savings.

Yep, totally nonsensical. However, were my circumstances different, would I choose the same again? Who knows. It depend on the exact case at that time.

Originally Posted by superquag

Having had both and done lotsa lotsa miles and Kms on them, I'd go for diesel.
The old Pajero with indirect 2.5 litres may have been gutless compared to a 300tdi or tD5, but fuel use was not much more. Say 24 to 26mpg overall.

The Mazda 2 litre 4WD van pulled ok at low speeds and could do 140+ km/h if you were silly... Used around the same.

My Lady Sarah, '95 classic V8 has a plebian thirst, 20+ litres per hundred. Or $30 per hour. Twice that of a RRC or Disco II running a tD5

Servicing costs of all the above were/are comparable, though the Bongo van took a few gallons of oil when both filters were changed...

Best all-rounder was my ;67 Crown, 22 around town and 27~28 on a (speed-limit...) run

Best engine size.... Six cylinders in whatever capacity... 2.3 to 4.5 litres.

Toyota crown?