8 ms·

> slow to accelerate Have you driven a modern diesel? At lower speeds, they easily beat similar-displacement petrol cars off the line with superior torque. The

by olex 9y ago

> slow to accelerate Have you driven a modern diesel? At lower speeds, they easily beat similar-displacement petrol cars off the line with superior torque. They are weaker at high speeds, but in normal (especially city) driving, a diesel is usually faster than a petrol. But yeah, their main factor for popularity is the cost per km. They use less fuel than petrol engines, and the fuel is less expensive (in Germany). This is offset by higher road tax and insurance somewhat, but for commuters and others who drive a lot (>~20000km per year) diesels are a much more cost effective option in Germany than anything else.

Svip 9y ago
Diesel isn't that cost efficient actually, even if you drive a lot. Diesel are more expensive to maintain due to regulations, plus diesel cars tend to be more expensive their petrol counterparts. Moreover, there is depreciation, which tend to be worse for diesel cars, because they are valued less on the second hand market (fairly or unfairly). On average, you should expect to drive at least 150.000+ km before you've broken even on a diesel car with its petrol counterpart. People only look at fuel consumption and fuel prices, but maintenance and depreciation are actually one's biggest loss on a car purchase. And in general petrol comes out on top.
- YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
  Different tax systems can affect the equation even if you disregard that you pay less at the pump for fuel that your car consumes less than a petrol equivalent – lower CO2 figures may also mean that you pay less yearly fees or less taxes on car registration as well. The break-even figure certainly varies by country (as does depreciation of different cars).
- mywittyname 9y ago
  The premium of diesel engines over petrol is one of the key reasons that we don't get many in the USA (the other issue being emissions). Bob Lutz, former GM CEO, was a big proponent of diesel but repeatedly acknowledged that it doesn't make sense in the USA. The market for people willing to pay the $5,000 premium (in 2007 dollars, mind you) was very small. Americans don't appreciate just how cheap cars in their region are. GM did manage to get a diesel Cruze into the USDM market, and keep it here, but it's low-margin and not a huge seller. A manual diesel Cruze starts at about $25,000 (compared to $17,000 for the base). So it is basically slotted as an "enthusiast" model, just not a high-performance one like Ford and Honda would offer.
- saiya-jin 9y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? Yes diesels are more expensive, the engine has to withstand much higher pressures internally, so it's made from solid iron rather than aluminium petrol engines (this is common situation, there might be exceptions). You can see it in weight difference - it can be up to 100kg more between similarly-specced engines. Result - you can run a diesel engine for 500,000 km easily, even more but other parts of the car won't usually keep up. Not much support needed apart from changing oil. I didn't have a single issue with my BMW 3l one, drove it for 100k km so far (and bought it with 100k km already), it drives like on my first day. There is a reason why all the buses and trucks have/had them - cheap to run, reliable.
zaarn 9y ago
Diesel has a higher maintenance cost too, especially if you only drive short distances. IIRC the main cost here is the catalysator, which basically clogs up if it can't properly heat up. That doesn't happen on short range.
- c3833174 9y ago
  No, that only applies to cars with the more fancy antiparticulate filter that also requires urea fluid.
  - xyzzyz 9y ago
    No, this has nothing to do with urea fluid. This is just a quirk of some DPFs.
nawitus 9y ago
You need power for acceleration, not torque. (But I agree that modern diesel cars accelerate fast enough).
bluedino 9y ago
It's an illusion that diesel vehicles are faster than gasoline. Gasoline engines have way more horsepower and are faster that the diesel options (unless Germans are getting neutered or smaller power plants than say, the USA)
- bdamm 9y ago
  That's a strange statement. More horsepower based on what? I think if you look around, you'll see that the largest and highest horsepower combustion engines all burn diesel. Semi-trailers are exclusively diesel. Your statement on speed is also odd. Record setting cars may burn gas, but your typical car driving around a city or highway needn't ever go faster than 160km/h. Most cars can achieve this, and most modern cars, whether diesel or gas, can achieve this without much difficulty. This leaves us with acceleration, where diesel vs gas is equally unclear. As small diesel engines often ship with turbos, you'd be perhaps comparing a turbocharged 2.0L diesel vs a normally aspirated 2.0L gas engine. Assuming roughly equivalent mass of the cars, with higher low-end torque, the diesel will win just about any street race. If what you're comparing is purchase price to acceleration, then indeed the gas cars may win.
  - mywittyname 9y ago
    > the diesel will win just about any street race. This is really wrong. It's a weird myth that gets perpetuated in America where people don't really drive diesels. Let's compare a 2.0L diesel Golf TDI to a 2.0L petrol Golf GTI. Same car, same displacement, both turbo engines. The Golf TDI does 0-60 in 9.0s and a quarter mile of 17.0s@84 mph. The Golf GTI does 0-60 in 5.7s and a quarter mile of 14.2s@100 mph. There's a staggering difference in performance there. The TDI is so slow that it's genuinely difficult to find a Motor Trend instrument test on a slower car, because at that point, it's too slow to really bother. I found the 2018 Rav4: 0-60 in 9.3s and a quarter mile of 17.0@82.
    - kazinator 9y ago
      If it were true, Formula-1 would use nothing but diesel engines.
blau3 9y ago
> Now Germany spews out about same carbon as before giant investments in solar, electricity is four times the price as in US, plus they now have to buy from France cause they don't produce enough. Well, they require a more complex motor which handles higher pressures and supercharging. The picture would be different if you would compare motors with the same price.

by olex 9y ago

Svip 9y ago

Diesel isn't that cost efficient actually, even if you drive a lot. Diesel are more expensive to maintain due to regulations, plus diesel cars tend to be more expensive their petrol counterparts. Moreover, there is depreciation, which tend to be worse for diesel cars, because they are valued less on the second hand market (fairly or unfairly). On average, you should expect to drive at least 150.000+ km before you've broken even on a diesel car with its petrol counterpart. People only look at fuel consumption and fuel prices, but maintenance and depreciation are actually one's biggest loss on a car purchase. And in general petrol comes out on top.

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
Different tax systems can affect the equation even if you disregard that you pay less at the pump for fuel that your car consumes less than a petrol equivalent – lower CO2 figures may also mean that you pay less yearly fees or less taxes on car registration as well. The break-even figure certainly varies by country (as does depreciation of different cars).
mywittyname 9y ago
The premium of diesel engines over petrol is one of the key reasons that we don't get many in the USA (the other issue being emissions). Bob Lutz, former GM CEO, was a big proponent of diesel but repeatedly acknowledged that it doesn't make sense in the USA. The market for people willing to pay the $5,000 premium (in 2007 dollars, mind you) was very small. Americans don't appreciate just how cheap cars in their region are. GM did manage to get a diesel Cruze into the USDM market, and keep it here, but it's low-margin and not a huge seller. A manual diesel Cruze starts at about $25,000 (compared to $17,000 for the base). So it is basically slotted as an "enthusiast" model, just not a high-performance one like Ford and Honda would offer.
saiya-jin 9y ago
What the hell are you talking about? Yes diesels are more expensive, the engine has to withstand much higher pressures internally, so it's made from solid iron rather than aluminium petrol engines (this is common situation, there might be exceptions). You can see it in weight difference - it can be up to 100kg more between similarly-specced engines. Result - you can run a diesel engine for 500,000 km easily, even more but other parts of the car won't usually keep up. Not much support needed apart from changing oil. I didn't have a single issue with my BMW 3l one, drove it for 100k km so far (and bought it with 100k km already), it drives like on my first day. There is a reason why all the buses and trucks have/had them - cheap to run, reliable.

zaarn 9y ago

Diesel has a higher maintenance cost too, especially if you only drive short distances. IIRC the main cost here is the catalysator, which basically clogs up if it can't properly heat up. That doesn't happen on short range.

c3833174 9y ago
No, that only applies to cars with the more fancy antiparticulate filter that also requires urea fluid.
- xyzzyz 9y ago
  No, this has nothing to do with urea fluid. This is just a quirk of some DPFs.

nawitus 9y ago

You need power for acceleration, not torque. (But I agree that modern diesel cars accelerate fast enough).

bluedino 9y ago

It's an illusion that diesel vehicles are faster than gasoline. Gasoline engines have way more horsepower and are faster that the diesel options (unless Germans are getting neutered or smaller power plants than say, the USA)

bdamm 9y ago
That's a strange statement. More horsepower based on what? I think if you look around, you'll see that the largest and highest horsepower combustion engines all burn diesel. Semi-trailers are exclusively diesel. Your statement on speed is also odd. Record setting cars may burn gas, but your typical car driving around a city or highway needn't ever go faster than 160km/h. Most cars can achieve this, and most modern cars, whether diesel or gas, can achieve this without much difficulty. This leaves us with acceleration, where diesel vs gas is equally unclear. As small diesel engines often ship with turbos, you'd be perhaps comparing a turbocharged 2.0L diesel vs a normally aspirated 2.0L gas engine. Assuming roughly equivalent mass of the cars, with higher low-end torque, the diesel will win just about any street race. If what you're comparing is purchase price to acceleration, then indeed the gas cars may win.
- mywittyname 9y ago
  > the diesel will win just about any street race. This is really wrong. It's a weird myth that gets perpetuated in America where people don't really drive diesels. Let's compare a 2.0L diesel Golf TDI to a 2.0L petrol Golf GTI. Same car, same displacement, both turbo engines. The Golf TDI does 0-60 in 9.0s and a quarter mile of 17.0s@84 mph. The Golf GTI does 0-60 in 5.7s and a quarter mile of 14.2s@100 mph. There's a staggering difference in performance there. The TDI is so slow that it's genuinely difficult to find a Motor Trend instrument test on a slower car, because at that point, it's too slow to really bother. I found the 2018 Rav4: 0-60 in 9.3s and a quarter mile of 17.0@82.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    If it were true, Formula-1 would use nothing but diesel engines.

blau3 9y ago

> Now Germany spews out about same carbon as before giant investments in solar, electricity is four times the price as in US, plus they now have to buy from France cause they don't produce enough. Well, they require a more complex motor which handles higher pressures and supercharging. The picture would be different if you would compare motors with the same price.