Interesting Drive article.

[Yellow_Festiva]

http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/Ar...rticleID=54392

Diesel cars more expensive to run
Jaedene Hudson, The Sydney Morning Herald, June 30, 2008

A running costs survey has found that diesel cars cost more to keep on the road than petrol cars.

The diesel-powered Mondeo had the biggest gap from its petrol sibling - $24.99 a week, or $1299.79 a year.
Choosing a diesel-powered car over a petrol model will cost the average motorist up to $1300 a year extra to run, according to a survey issued this week.

Buyers are being lured by the better fuel economy and performance of diesel cars but the higher purchase price and higher price of diesel fuel often cancels out gains made by lower fuel consumption. It is only in larger cars, such as soft-roaders and four-wheel-drives, that diesel begins to save families money.

Of the six diesel hatches compared in the RACV (Victoria's leading motoring body) Running Costs Survey, only one was actually cheaper than the petrol version over five years or 75,000 kilometres. This was the Hyundai i30 and the diesel was cheaper by just 53 cents a week ($27.56 a year).

In fact, most diesel hatches cost about $1000 extra a year to run than equivalent petrol models.

The diesel-powered Mondeo had the biggest gap from its petrol sibling - $24.99 a week, or $1299.79 a year. If you kept the diesel for five years it would cost almost $6500 more.

Likewise, a diesel-powered Holden Astra costs an extra $24.54 a week ($1275.98 a year) than the petrol version.

The Ford Focus diesel and petrol models were a lot closer. Here, the diesel cost $10.83 more each week, an extra $563.23 annually.

The bigger the vehicle, the cheaper diesel becomes as an alternative. The diesel Holden Captiva soft-roader is $216.01 cheaper to run a year than the petrol model. Choosing the diesel-powered Nissan Patrol 4WD will save you more than $13,300 over five years, relative to the petrol model.

The Toyota LandCruiser 4WD, however, is the other way around - the diesel costs nearly $20 a week more to run.

Diesels weren't the only "alternative fuel" option that cost more. Choosing the Honda Civic Hybrid over the petrol Civic costs $1192.69 a year more, while a Toyota Prius costs $296 more annually than a Camry.

The survey includes 60 of the most popular cars on our roads and accounts for all the weekly costs of owning a car, including purchase price, depreciation and running costs (price of fuel, tyres, servicing and insurance) over five years or 75,000 kilometres.

When it comes to fuels, LPG is the only option that really saves buyers money.

The LPG-powered Ford Falcon is $13.73 a week cheaper to run than the petrol model, saving the owner $714.33 a year or $3571.65 over five years. The saving was considerably less on an LPG Commodore, however, at $86.59 a year.

The Toyota LandCruiser turbo diesel 4WD costs $401.53 to run each week and is the most expensive car in Australia to run.

The Hyundai Getz city car is the cheapest, at just over $120 a week.

The survey showed the cost of owning a large family car was $13 a week more for the Ford Falcon and $6 a week extra for a Holden Commodore this year compared with last.

Geeze, you would think they should be comparing the Prius to the Corolla? The Camry is a totally different class of car.

Hmmm was always wondering If I should go Diesel for the next car..

What are servicing costs like for diesels? Are they classed differently for rego? I guess the better economy would cancel out the extra cost of diesel fuel that would leave purchase price premium and prob servicing as the 2 main costs?

[loltastic]

I said a while ago that the Diesel Mondeo wasn't any more frugal than a run of the mill Lancer or Mazda 3, infact it uses more fuel than the aforementioned cars, and diesel is 20-30c more expensive than petroleum.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

What are servicing costs like for diesels?

They are a bit more expensive, but not much.

Are they classed differently for rego?

No.

I guess the better economy would cancel out the extra cost of diesel fuel that would leave purchase price premium and prob servicing as the 2 main costs?

I don't really think so. I would say that the diesel is cheaper to run. With the 307, the service intervals are pushed out to 20,000kms, so it's longer between services than the 15,000km that is generally standard on petrol cars. So over 3 years, servicing the diesel 307 would cost roughly the same as a petrol Falcon for instance assuming both cars cover 45,000kms in that time. 2 services for the diesel and 3 for the petrol.
As for the difference in fuel costs, we are paying roughly $100 for a tank of diesel that will get us 900kms.
At $1.899 for diesel, 60 litres would cost approx $114. That would get us about 1000kms. That is a cost of roughly 11c/km.
At say $1.599 for petrol, 60 litres would cost approx $96. That would get you about 600kms. That is a cost of roughly 16c/km.
So fuel wise, the diesel still wins out.

[Sam]

What about the additional cost of the diesel 307 compare to the petrol version though?

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

They are a bit more expensive, but not much.


No.


I don't really think so. I would say that the diesel is cheaper to run. With the 307, the service intervals are pushed out to 20,000kms, so it's longer between services than the 15,000km that is generally standard on petrol cars. So over 3 years, servicing the diesel 307 would cost roughly the same as a petrol Falcon for instance assuming both cars cover 45,000kms in that time. 2 services for the diesel and 3 for the petrol.
As for the difference in fuel costs, we are paying roughly $100 for a tank of diesel that will get us 900kms.
At $1.899 for diesel, 60 litres would cost approx $114. That would get us about 1000kms. That is a cost of roughly 11c/km.
At say $1.599 for petrol, 60 litres would cost approx $96. That would get you about 600kms. That is a cost of roughly 16c/km.
So fuel wise, the diesel still wins out.

[snappy]

No suprises for me there that would explain why they seem to get pushed harder these days . More money for the parties concerned

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Sam

What about the additional cost of the diesel 307 compare to the petrol version though?

I think it was about $3000 more to buy.

With a difference of 5c/km, it'd take approx 60,000kms to break even.

What about the cost of a diesel over the life of the car? Wouldn't it be cheaper due to the fact that the engine lasts longer and wouldn't require a rebuild as soon as a petrol? Bugger the cost over 5 years as in the article, we plan to keep the Peugeot for it's life, hence why we bought brand new.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

I think it was about $3000 more to buy.

With a difference of 5c/km, it'd take approx 60,000kms to break even.

What about the cost of a diesel over the life of the car? Wouldn't it be cheaper due to the fact that the engine lasts longer and wouldn't require a rebuild as soon as a petrol? Bugger the cost over 5 years as in the article, we plan to keep the Peugeot for it's life, hence why we bought brand new.

For many people though they have borrowed money to buy the car. In your case an extra $3000. This ads considerably to the end cost and is usually taken into account by RACV or whoever is doing the costings. You can buy an reasonable amount of petrol for the interest on that $3000.

[Martys_EL_V8]

It also varies on how your car is driven, i have two work utes here, identical except one is a diesel and one is a petrol. (both being 07 mitsubishi triton GLX-r's)
I take the diesel down to the farm all the time and i get fantastic fuel economy.
i can take the petrol down there and get good economy but not as good as the Diesel.
Most household families that buy a diesel use them to run down to the shops, pick the kids up from school etc.... freeway driving is where you save your money ;)

[Falcon Coupe]

I use a diesel dual cab ute to tow a one ton trailer every day, it uses 13.5L per 100klm.
My previous duel cab V6 petrol used 17.5L per and 100klm and it was 300kg lighter.

[Abacus]

I don't understand this bit:

The LPG-powered Ford Falcon is $13.73 a week cheaper to run than the petrol model, saving the owner $714.33 a year or $3571.65 over five years. The saving was considerably less on an LPG Commodore, however, at $86.59 a year.

I would have thought any Falcon owner going through more than a tank of fuel a week would be at least $70 a week better off with LPG - that's $3,500+ per year.

I do about 35,000km a year, and I'm at least $5,000 per year better off with LPG.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Abacus

I don't understand this bit:

I would have thought any Falcon owner going through more than a tank of fuel a week would be at least $70 a week better off with LPG - that's $3,500+ per year.

I do about 35,000km a year, and I'm at least $5,000 per year better off with LPG.

Because they are talking about operating costs (standing and running costs) , which covers far more cost factors than just fuel consumption. This is why my RWD TX Ford Territory costs less to operate than a Toyota Prius - yes true!

For a more detailed analysis than the RACV see the NRMA lists:

http://www.mynrma.com.au/cps/rde/xch...ting_costs.htm

[Abacus]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Because they are talking about operating costs (standing and running costs) , which covers far more cost factors than just fuel consumption.

Yes, I entirely understand that.

What I do not understand is given that the LPG Falcon will save at least $70 a week in fuel costs more than the petrol Falcon, how can the overall saving be only $13.73 a week. In order to achieve this amazing result the LPG Falcon would have to be substantially more expensive in other areas than the petrol model. It just ain't so. The survey is bunk.

[Abacus]

I just followed the NRMA link you posted, and the tables are entirely outdated crap.

For instance, according to that table a Falcon travelling 15,000km a year (300km per week) will burn $45.57 of petrol or $26.00 of LPG per week.

yeah...righhht.

More likely:

Petrol - 45L x $1.60 = $72

LPG - 56L x $0.68 = $38

So there's a $34 difference there, for starters.

And I reckon the remaining operating costs favour the LPG car.

And most Falcons do more than 15,000km per year, which makes the weekly difference bigger.

Like I said. The survey is bunk.

[ebxr8240]

Sheeesh !!! Due to having a work vehicle .. It really gets to me having to put $20 in my own car these days...

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Abacus

Like I said. The survey is bunk.

Thanx for the update Abacus! :

So they're having trouble keeping up to date on rapidly changing fuel prices! But the relativities are probably not too changed. Lots of other costs are taken into account - including insurance, service etc etc etc.

[flappist]

Deleted

[outback_ute]

They don't appear to have included the LPG rebate in the purchase cost of the cars, also in the table the "Rego, ins, Licence & RACV m'ship" cost is $4-5 more per week for the Falcons than the Aurion - I presume this means insurance on the Aurion must be $200-250 cheaper per year.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

They don't appear to have included the LPG rebate in the purchase cost of the cars, also in the table the "Rego, ins, Licence & RACV m'ship" cost is $4-5 more per week for the Falcons than the Aurion - I presume this means insurance on the Aurion must be $200-250 cheaper per year.

Doesn't suprise me, your average thief wont break into an Aurion. Bowls hats and RSL discount cards don''t fetch much at the pawnbrokers

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Bowls hats and RSL discount cards don''t fetch much at the pawnbrokers

What's wrong with cheap inner city parking and beer at genuine 1970's prices?