Kia Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Kia Ceed, MGTF, Various Jeeps new and old, FIAT 500
Joined
·
268 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Has anyone done the calculations regarding how many miles pa need to be done on the new Ceed to justify the Diesel premium?

Sent from my ZTE-BLADE using AutoGuide App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Its easy enough to calculate. We do 10,000 miles a year in our CRDI at 50mpg, that's 200 gallons. In a petrol we would probably average about 35mpg, that's 285 gallons meaning we save 85 gallons at £6 a gallon, £510. Servicing is the same but we save £70 a year on RFL, total saving £580.

The CRDi cost us about £1000 more than a petrol thus after 2 years we are in pocket. We keep our cars 5 years normally thus we should make a good saving.

Don't forget that diesels are worth more second hand, Parkers suggest a 5 year old diesel is worth £800 more that a 5 year old identical petrol.

Simples.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
130 Posts
I find the initial extra cost of a diesel car over a petrol one is well worthwhile irrespective of mileage for better acceleration & mpg. Seven 7 post shows there is a considerable saving after 2 years.
 

·
Registered
Cee'd VR-7
Joined
·
391 Posts
I find the initial extra cost of a diesel car over a petrol one is well worthwhile irrespective of mileage for better acceleration & mpg. Seven 7 post shows there is a considerable saving after 2 years.
I'm surprised you say "better acceleration" :confused:
 

·
Registered
0858 Kia Pro_Cee'd 3 1.6 CRDi, Red
Joined
·
191 Posts
I'm surprised you say "better acceleration" :confused:
I'm not, I came into diesel ownership off the back of owning a 3.2 V6 Vectra GSi and a Civic VTI with 170 bhp, and not once have I felt short changed by the diesels extra grunt.

Back on topic, we're also forgetting that diesel cars are a lot cheaper to tax too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
I'm surprised you say "better acceleration" :confused:
Its not the fuel, its the turbo.

If you are talking 0-60 a petrol is normally better than a diesel with similar power in the same body. But when it comes to in gear accleration e.g. 40-70 in 5th the diesel turbo will always beat the similarly powered petrol in the same car, its down to the way the torque is produced.

Personally even if a diesel did cost more to run I would buy one since the modern petrols I have driven tend to be gutless beasts that need the nuts revving off them to produce decent performance.

The exception I have driven was the 122 bhp 1.4 turbo petrol in the Skoda Octavia, in truth I think it drove better than a diesel, no lag at all and great power all the way from 1500 - 6000 rpm with great in gear accleration as well, nearly bought one but an expected mpg of 35 put me off together with the deafening road roar even on smooth roads.
 

·
Registered
RIP :( 2010 Pro_Cee'd - Infra Red 2
Joined
·
863 Posts
Ceed3 - sure we all had this conversation about a month ago, interesting as that was it went wildly off the original topic :D

Seven7 - really interesting to see those figures actually, salesmen always say you'll only benefit if doing 17000+ miles p/a, but you show clear savings in 2 years at 10k p/a.

FTR: my 1.4 petrol averaged 38mpg from January to October according to fuel log pro, - doing <>15k per year, mostly on country roads. Should've gone diesel, if only I could stand the engine noise! :(
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
Its not the fuel, its the turbo.

... the modern petrols I have driven tend to be gutless beasts...

...The exception I have driven was the 122 bhp 1.4 turbo petrol ...
Err, quite.

I agree that modern normally aspirated petrol cars feel gutless. Too much weight and not enough cubes.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
130 Posts
I'm surprised you say "better acceleration" :confused:
I find the performance of the new Ceed 2 1.6 diesel 126 auto appears to exceed the official figures especially 0-50 mph, I find it feels a lot faster than my previous 2 litre auto cars both petrol Dodge Caliber & Diesel Chev Cruze.turbo lag on the Cruze despite having 150 bhp & a 6 speed box that functions exactly the same as on the Kia. I suppose weight & drag are responsible although I have not compared figures..
 

·
Registered
RIP :( 2010 Pro_Cee'd - Infra Red 2
Joined
·
863 Posts
My current hire car is a Seat Altea 1.6TDI. Goes quite well I must say, copes with my commute with ease and fewer gear changes than the pro.
It's an Altea SE spec with a 105PS Ecomotive engine.

So far averaged 46mpg according to car (short of it's claimed 54 urban), though I've not been logging fuel data since crash.
 

·
Registered
Kia Ceed, MGTF, Various Jeeps new and old, FIAT 500
Joined
·
268 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Err, quite.

I agree that modern normally aspirated petrol cars feel gutless. Too much weight and not enough cubes.
It also due to the fact that petrol engines (and particularly small ones) have got more and more over-square in recent years so they have a shorter stroke and wider pistons need to be reved more and produce more bhp at peak but less torque. I am not sure what the thinking behind this is but probably due to reasons of compactness and also that over-square engines have wider bores so have more room for more vales (i.e 16 valve engines) and bigger valves which are better for efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
It also due to the fact that petrol engines (and particularly small ones) have got more and more over-square in recent years so they have a shorter stroke and wider pistons need to be reved more and produce more bhp at peak but less torque.
Not a fact in all cases. Mr Fords engines were oversquare in the 60's the 1600 x-flow was 81 bore x 78 stroke approx but move to the late 90's and the Focus 2 litre petrol was 85 bore x 87 stroke approx. The 1600 petrol in the Ceed is 77 bore x 85 stroke, not oversquare by any stretch of the imagination..
 

·
Registered
Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Joined
·
648 Posts
It also due to the fact that petrol engines (and particularly small ones) have got more and more over-square in recent years so they have a shorter stroke and wider pistons need to be reved more and produce more bhp at peak but less torque. I am not sure what the thinking behind this is but probably due to reasons of compactness and also that over-square engines have wider bores so have more room for more vales (i.e 16 valve engines) and bigger valves which are better for efficiency.
More valves make better use of head area which allows bore to be reduced. Which is what has happened. Modern engines don't produce less torque. The issue is that cars have got about 30% heavier without a corresponding increase in engine capacity, hence no increase in torque (unless forced). That means more revs are required to get the same response.
 

·
Registered
RIP :( 2010 Pro_Cee'd - Infra Red 2
Joined
·
863 Posts
Apologies, my last post on this thread was rather off topic, was just thinking aloud :(
To redeem myself, I've just excel'd last months' fuel usage in petrol, and compared to my current diesel's average on same journey.

Petrol: 1408 miles @ 37mpg (avg) @ 1.38/litre = £236 in fuel (24 sept - 24 oct)
Diesel: 1408 miles @ 46mpg (avg) @ 1.42/litre = £195 in fuel

That's a clear £40 cheaper in that month, £480 per year extrapolating that out!
Even just working out a single month, that completely tallies up with Seven7's figures :)

In case it's helpful, excel sums are:
Miles / MPG * cost per gallon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Dubster

Not only is the 46 mpg well short of the official urban its 27% short of the official combined of 62.6 mpg.

And people moan that Kia's perform badly compared to the official figures.

If I had my anorak handy I would read what they say on a Seat forum.
 

·
Registered
RIP :( 2010 Pro_Cee'd - Infra Red 2
Joined
·
863 Posts
Yes indeed mate, it should manage better than 'urban mpg' on my 30 mile country lanes commute!
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top