Tin Pot
Guru
Yeah but you could call it Michael...... or Jenny.....
Logane? As in Megane.
Diesel dilemma ....
- Thread starter Fab Foodie
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Logane? As in Megane.
simon the viking
Guru
On a serious note I think the diesel would be the only choice for the Logan for motorway work... the 1.2 would struggle badly fully loaded.... the 0.9 turbo the jury is out on that (on forums) for heavy, high speed mileage (turbo wear...)
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
I think a Logan of any flavour is a highly unsuitable choice for big motorway miles unless the driver has zero regard for comfort, noise, performance etc.
Kevoffthetee
On the road to nowhere
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
in place of the spare wheel. payback depends on mpg and mileage but its half price fuel, if you usually spend £2000 a year on fuel that'll go down to little over £1000 a year so potentially after 1.5 years in this case then half price running from there
granted its not worth it for low mileage but anything 10,000 and above or if you drive a fuel guzzler then its worth it. Typically everyone we know now run LPG, from 1.0 ecoboost ford focuses to 6.3litre Mercedes AMG C63's
EDIT: I will say however I am an exception and run a Volvo S40 2.0D SE SPORT. I'm waiting until bills start becoming expensive them I'm looking at something like a second hand BMW 330i touring to put on LPG
Last edited:
Kevoffthetee
On the road to nowhere
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
[QUOTE 3921735, member: 259"]We looked into this but you're banned from Eurotunnel. 
[/QUOTE]
REALLY, an lpg tank is safer than a plastic fuel tank, they are triple skinned steel
[/QUOTE]REALLY, an lpg tank is safer than a plastic fuel tank, they are triple skinned steel
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
They do a lot more than 11 on account of spending most of their journeys on a low loader.
simon the viking
Guru
My 1.2 Sandero is fine on motorways and will cruise comfortably at
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
I was helping out child mknder move some stuff recently and her 1.2 Sandero was certainly able to do 70, but to say this it was sufficiently comfortable at that speed to call it "cruising" is stretching it. They weren't the smoothest motors when they were new nearly 2 decades ago.
simon the viking
Guru
I suppose its what your used to My last car was 1.6 8v Astra which had poorer fuel consumption and the same BHP as the sandero so I didn't really notice.... I have had pretty quick cars in the past and some got me into trouble
( 9 points for nearly 3 years.....It certainly slowed me down PERMANENTLY) and 1 in particular used to travel far too quickly.... and if I'd ever been pulled it would have been a six month ban.... so I'm happy to have a car that can not crack a ton..... and better bikes than I have ever had in my life I can't get into (much) trouble with the law on them.....
Last edited:
slowmotion
Quite dreadful
- Location
- lost somewhere
The current van has a 1.3 litre turbo diesel engine that could give 600 miles on a tank of fuel if you stick to 60 mph on the motorway. It's nippy too. That seems quite a good deal to me but my annual mileage is laughably low.
Smurfy
Naturist Smurf
- Location
- Smurfette's Kitchen
Too unpopular and controversial after telling car buyers for years that diesel is 'green' with respect to CO2.
Gravity Aided
Legendary Member
- Location
- Land of Lincoln
I think it would be nice to have PRT (like at Heathrow) for some journeys longer than 10 miles. Less than 10 miles or so, we already have the answer.
Over The Hill
Guru
- Location
- Ridden off into the sunset
In the choice of car we are given here, the miles the car drives is not a variable. The task is to find a car to drive 20k per year so driving 10k or taking a train are not on the list of options.
So therefore should we not then be looking at the best choice for doing those 20k? The OP really was saying a big fat diesel car or a big fat petrol car. I was really saying the issue was the big fat car or a less fat car. To illustrate this by example- you cannot have a "green" range rover as you have started as a great disadvantage it can never be green, only a little greener. Lots of options out there for a lower more aerodynamic option.
If we go into it there are endless variables to consider in being green. I drive an E class Mercedes estate diesel. Bad in many ways but it will probably last 30 years to most cars being scrapped at 15 years so has saved the energy in making a whole car. So illustrates some false economy in a cheapo, disposable car. Quite rightly we are both looking at all sorts of considerations, but it is easy to get hung up on some that are perhaps minor ones.
To me the big issue is the 20,000 miles at 80mpg compared to the same distance at say 50mpg (a fair guess of diesel v petrol returns) gives a difference in fuel of 150 gallons per year or 1136 litres of fuel. You have to rack up a huge amount of extra servicing and consumables to even make a dent in the extra environmental cost and actual cost of 1135 litres of fuel.
For me that fuel saving (green and financial) would win out. Also as mentioned I believe new Diesel cars are much cleaner. Wifeys pug 208 diesel is in the zero tax band because of the low emissions and fantastic economy.
Tin Pot
Guru
A sensible post but I must draw issue with "Also as mentioned I believe new Diesel cars are much cleaner. "
This isnt true, or at least it's a vast oversimplification when comparing petrol and diesel cars.
Diesel produces more particulate matter and noxious gases, but less carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
Unless you have a formal that 1 particulate matter = n hydrocarbons you're never going to be able to make such a direct comparison.
If you then look at the impact of these emissions, I would conclude it is better to reduce diesel use in population centres and reduce carbon emissions in industrial centres.