You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why does every dealer insist on Diesel
- Thread starter ARRY
- Start date
Torque great if you've a caravan to tow .
Why do they only offer Diesels when for the majority of the private buyer its not required ..
Diesel costs more so has higher profit.
Once you have driven a turbo powered car, petrol or diesel, going back to a normally aspirated engine isn't a option, not unless it comes with more than 4 cylinders.
The ease of driving a car with high torque makes the journey less of a hassle, very relaxing.
The reason I go for a diesel is the extra torque and more to the gallon.
The gap now though has closed considerably, I would say in the UK that a turbo petrol or diesel would be good.
I tow a caravan, so the 310 pound feet of torque is the draw for me, I already find the 266 pound feet I have wanting towing a 1565kg caravan.
Also modern cars are now coming with very high gearing to reduce emissions, so high torque low down the rev range usually equates to good economy.
I do less than 7K a year and am on my second diesel.
The ease of driving a car with high torque makes the journey less of a hassle, very relaxing.
The reason I go for a diesel is the extra torque and more to the gallon.
The gap now though has closed considerably, I would say in the UK that a turbo petrol or diesel would be good.
I tow a caravan, so the 310 pound feet of torque is the draw for me, I already find the 266 pound feet I have wanting towing a 1565kg caravan.
Also modern cars are now coming with very high gearing to reduce emissions, so high torque low down the rev range usually equates to good economy.
I do less than 7K a year and am on my second diesel.
Why does every dealer insist on Diesel
Out of all the dealers I have been to with the exception of Mazda
only supply diesels in top spec
Audi - Petrol AWD AND A CO2 VED 195 dont need AWD
Kia - top spec in Diesel only
Hyundai top spec diesel only
Qashqia top spec diesel only
VW Diesel
Cant seem to find any other with good head room thats a petrol FWD , apart from Mazda
As I only do 6000 miles per year a Diesel would take me some 33yrs to get the money back
And As the engine would never get warm enough on short trips I doubt i would never get a good MPG
So as the average private consumer only does 8000 miles per year average in UK,,,
Whats with all these Diesels ????
Once you have driven a turbo powered car, petrol or diesel, going back to a normally aspirated engine isn't a option, not unless it comes with more than 4 cylinders.
I've driven all kinds of high torque vehicles over the decades (as well as recently) and I prefer the sporty nature of smaller, higher revving engines. Drivers who put a higher premium on being less engaged with the driving experience (in particular, the power plant) often prefer the broader power band and high torque of a diesel.
The blanket statement that once someone has driven a turbo powered car there is no going back is just silly. I have a twin turbo powered car with a straight 6 weighing the same as the CX-5 but making 268 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque and the CX-5 is more fun and more engaging under acceleration. The twin turbo is much faster to accelerate but that doesn't mean I prefer it. Both vehicles are fast enough to have a great experience but I prefer the little four banger because it is fun to wring as much as possible out of it when I want maximum performance. The nearly flat torque curve of the twin turbos is just not as engaging.
When I want real performance, I hop on one of my motorcycles. 0-60 in 3.6 seconds and quarter mile in 11.02 (with stock engine) puts almost any car (turbo or diesel) to shame.
The twin turbo Mazda diesel 173 bhp version doesn't have a flat torque curve, not that that would be a negative if it did.
Even the 148 bhp version gives out 280 pound feet, along with exceptional performance.
The normally aspirated engine can't be compared when it comes to driving pleasure, the diesel wins on all fronts.
If you look at the whirlpool forum you'll get the idea.
Even the 148 bhp version gives out 280 pound feet, along with exceptional performance.
The normally aspirated engine can't be compared when it comes to driving pleasure, the diesel wins on all fronts.
If you look at the whirlpool forum you'll get the idea.
I've driven all kinds of high torque vehicles over the decades (as well as recently) and I prefer the sporty nature of smaller, higher revving engines. Drivers who put a higher premium on being less engaged with the driving experience (in particular, the power plant) often prefer the broader power band and high torque of a diesel.
The blanket statement that once someone has driven a turbo powered car there is no going back is just silly. I have a twin turbo powered car with a straight 6 weighing the same as the CX-5 but making 268 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque and the CX-5 is more fun and more engaging under acceleration. The twin turbo is much faster to accelerate but that doesn't mean I prefer it. Both vehicles are fast enough to have a great experience but I prefer the little four banger because it is fun to wring as much as possible out of it when I want maximum performance. The nearly flat torque curve of the twin turbos is just not as engaging.
When I want real performance, I hop on one of my motorcycles. 0-60 in 3.6 seconds and quarter mile in 11.02 (with stock engine) puts almost any car (turbo or diesel) to shame.
The twin turbo Mazda diesel 173 bhp version doesn't have a flat torque curve, not that that would be a negative if it did.
Compared to the gas version it has a very flat torque curve. Makes me think you don't understand the term. I agree, a flat torque curve is often thought of as an advantage (although with a six speed transmission it is of less benefit).
The normally aspirated engine can't be compared when it comes to driving pleasure, the diesel wins on all fronts.
That statement is overly broad and a matter of personal preference.
I took exception to your statement than once a turbo engine was experienced, no one could go back to a normally aspirated engine. That pronouncement is also overly broad because engine preference is basically a matter of personal opinion, especially in a car built for public roads, not a race track. I provided reasons why I prefer the more sporty feel of an engine that builds power more proportionately as rpm's rise, you prefer having comparatively more power at lower rpm's. Different strokes for different folks. It's not one size fits all and that's why Mazda offers three different engines for the CX-5. To imply that no one could possibly be satisfied with the gasser once they had driven the diesel is ridiculous.
Flat is Flat as in level, perhaps you don't understand what flat is?
Petrol engines with a turbo are often flat, and can have max torque over a very wide band.
I have a torque graph for the diesel sent from Mazda, were have you seen one? The torque curve looks like a humpbacked bridge, not flat anywhere.
None have been printed in the UK Mazda brochure.
By the way you need to drive the petrol and diesel before you can comment.
In the UK very few "drivers cars" lack a turbo, so obviously the makers are supplying a demand from customers.
Petrol engines with a turbo are often flat, and can have max torque over a very wide band.
I have a torque graph for the diesel sent from Mazda, were have you seen one? The torque curve looks like a humpbacked bridge, not flat anywhere.
None have been printed in the UK Mazda brochure.
By the way you need to drive the petrol and diesel before you can comment.
In the UK very few "drivers cars" lack a turbo, so obviously the makers are supplying a demand from customers.
Compared to the gas version it has a very flat torque curve. Makes me think you don't understand the term. I agree, a flat torque curve is often thought of as an advantage (although with a six speed transmission it is of less benefit).
That statement is overly broad and a matter of personal preference.
I took exception to your statement than once a turbo engine was experienced, no one could go back to a normally aspirated engine. That pronouncement is also overly broad because engine preference is basically a matter of personal opinion, especially in a car built for public roads, not a race track. I provided reasons why I prefer the more sporty feel of an engine that builds power more proportionately as rpm's rise, you prefer having comparatively more power at lower rpm's. Different strokes for different folks. It's not one size fits all and that's why Mazda offers three different engines for the CX-5. To imply that no one could possibly be satisfied with the gasser once they had driven the diesel is ridiculous.
Flat is Flat as in level, perhaps you don't understand what flat is?
No engine has a perfectly flat torque curve.
The term "flat torque curve" is a relative term. The SkyActiv diesel certainly falls into the category of engines with a flat torque curve.
By the way you need to drive the petrol and diesel before you can comment.
No, I don't. Your overly broad comment included all turbo diesels as well as turbo petrol engines. I have plenty of driving experience with both. And, after test driving the 2.0L petrol CX-5 I "went back" to a naturally aspirated engine (contrary to your pronouncement that I couldn't).
My only point is that not everyone shares your preferences (as much as you might think they do).
Agreed, different driver preferences for engines in different markets. In the UK market diesel popularity is mainly driven by economics (MPG, plus favorable tax treatment). My personal preference for my more sporting vehicles is 6's and 8's (not 4's and or diesels), not that it matters.
In the US market, a majority of car-buyers prefer not to buy diesel engines despite very high MPG ratings and very high torque ratings. Some of the reasons include much higher vehicle purchase price, high diesel fuel cost, local diesel fuel availability, higher maintenance costs/more complexity (including turbos, DPF and some with urea systems) to achieve low emissions, and lower redlines and horsepower ratings.
In the US market, a majority of car-buyers prefer not to buy diesel engines despite very high MPG ratings and very high torque ratings. Some of the reasons include much higher vehicle purchase price, high diesel fuel cost, local diesel fuel availability, higher maintenance costs/more complexity (including turbos, DPF and some with urea systems) to achieve low emissions, and lower redlines and horsepower ratings.
So you haven't actually seen the diesel torque graph then.
Ok so you can go back to a NA engine, but why would you want too?
Ok so you can go back to a NA engine, but why would you want too?
No engine has a perfectly flat torque curve.
The term "flat torque curve" is a relative term. The SkyActiv diesel certainly falls into the category of engines with a flat torque curve.
No, I don't. Your overly broad comment included all turbo diesels as well as turbo petrol engines. I have plenty of driving experience with both. And, after test driving the 2.0L petrol CX-5 I "went back" to a naturally aspirated engine (contrary to your pronouncement that I couldn't).
My only point is that not everyone shares your preferences (as much as you might think they do).
Agreed, different driver preferences for engines in different markets. In the UK market diesel popularity is mainly driven by economics (MPG, plus favorable tax treatment). My personal preference for my more sporting vehicles is 6's and 8's (not 4's and or diesels), not that it matters.
In the US market, a majority of car-buyers prefer not to buy diesel engines despite very high MPG ratings and very high torque ratings. Some of the reasons include much higher vehicle purchase price, high diesel fuel cost, local diesel fuel availability, higher maintenance costs/more complexity (including turbos, DPF and some with urea systems) to achieve low emissions, and lower redlines and horsepower ratings.
My comments were referring to 4 cylinder engines, although obviously any car will benefit from a turbo or two.
My comments were referring to 4 cylinder engines, although obviously any car will benefit from a turbo or two.
Yes, and OP's topic "Why does every dealer insist on Diesel" was referring to diesel engines.
"Out of all the dealers I have been to with the exception of Mazda
only supply diesels in top spec"
Noticing the mention of top-spec (or as we call it in US, top-of-the line), that's why the diesel engines are matched to top-spec versions of the SUV's. Clean/low-emission diesels are expensive (more expensive to buy and maintain because of turbos, DPF's, urea, etc.) and therefore a more logical engine choice from marketing standpoint in the higher-spec, more expensive versions.
jcarroll07
Member
- :
- 2008 Mazda 3i Sedan- 5MT
"Out of all the dealers I have been to with the exception of Mazda
only supply diesels in top spec"
Noticing the mention of top-spec (or as we call it in US, top-of-the line), that's why the diesel engines are matched to top-spec versions of the SUV's. Clean/low-emission diesels are expensive (more expensive to buy and maintain because of turbos, DPF's, urea, etc.) and therefore a more logical engine choice from marketing standpoint in the higher-spec, more expensive versions.
Bingo. It's all about the money, money money!! Higher trim and package options equal greater profit margin, and more profit headroom to account for all the marginal costs associated with certification of a separate drivetrain. In the US Market, a fully loaded AWD GT w/ Tech retails for almost 150% the price of a totally stripped down manual fwd sport... No way the marginal production costs for the options are nearly that big as compared to the entire rest of the vehicle. That's how profit works!
Of course, to address the title of the thread "Why does every dealer insist on Diesel".... I think the problem here in the NA markets is that they don't!!!!
dad of jon
Member
- :
- cx-5 se-l 2.2D
Why does every dealer insist on Diesel
Out of all the dealers I have been to with the exception of Mazda
only supply diesels in top spec
Audi - Petrol AWD AND A CO2 VED 195 dont need AWD
Kia - top spec in Diesel only
Hyundai top spec diesel only
Qashqia top spec diesel only
VW Diesel
Cant seem to find any other with good head room thats a petrol FWD , apart from Mazda
As I only do 6000 miles per year a Diesel would take me some 33yrs to get the money back
And As the engine would never get warm enough on short trips I doubt i would never get a good MPG
So as the average private consumer only does 8000 miles per year average in UK,,,
Whats with all these Diesels ????
I could also add why if you want the higher power diesel engines do you have to go AWD.
The Mazda 6 has 175ps in Fwd so why not the cx5.
You don't often see an entry level engine with a top of the range spec. The better performance engine has the better spec usually, I suppose it helps justify the higher price jumps from bottom to top of the range.
dad of jon
Member
- :
- cx-5 se-l 2.2D
So you haven't actually seen the diesel torque graph then.
Ok so you can go back to a NA engine, but why would you want too?
I think both you and mike have a point. My cx-5 diesel has a flatter curve than my old kia diesel, which had more of a sudden surge/boost of torque.more like an on-off switch but very enjoyable. But the cx-5 has a longer surge of sustainable torque. The vw touran 140 felt flatter again if felt to me like they were trying to give it the feel of a petrol engine. it has the same ps & torque of the kia but delivered it in a less exciting way. Sudden boost is quite addictive but not so much fun on busy roads.
So I'd say it was flatter compared to my old kia but still entertaining!
I think the delivery is linear, this is due to the sequential turbo's, the smaller one allows excellent torque from tick over, while the larger one gives boost right up to around 3.3K revs.
The old Vag PD engines gave a massive surge of torque, which while exciting was actually a poor way of delivery.
The 175 CX5 has a broader band than the 150 and gives 280 pound feet over a wider band, but up to 1500rpm the torque is virtually the same.
The 175 only peaks at 310 pound feet in a pyramid shape for want of a better discretion.
The 180bhp Audi petrol I had gave max torque from 1959rpm up to 4500 rpm, the more modern turbo petrol's have a flat torque over a wider range, now 1300rpm to 4.5K on some versions.
The old Vag PD engines gave a massive surge of torque, which while exciting was actually a poor way of delivery.
The 175 CX5 has a broader band than the 150 and gives 280 pound feet over a wider band, but up to 1500rpm the torque is virtually the same.
The 175 only peaks at 310 pound feet in a pyramid shape for want of a better discretion.
The 180bhp Audi petrol I had gave max torque from 1959rpm up to 4500 rpm, the more modern turbo petrol's have a flat torque over a wider range, now 1300rpm to 4.5K on some versions.
dad of jon
Member
- :
- cx-5 se-l 2.2D
yes my kia had a single variable geometry turbo and that was a great lump of torque. and yes the 140ps diesel fitted to the first tourans had that surge but on a test drive of a later model a few years later it had gone- so I bought the kia. the cx5 still has that surge that brings a smile to your face, but it's more refined with it.
There is no point in me getting a diesel
As I dont do enough miles per year 6K max
My journeys wouldn't get a diesel engine warm enough to take advantage of the MPG that a diesels offer
I know the advantages of driving diesel torque etc... As I have a works vehicle that's diesel. but this my own private car .
I did a cost comparison where you enter the costs of the car and the average mpg and the price of fuel and the miles done in a year
I compared the CX5 2.0 PETROL SEL AND CX5 2.2 D SEL with 6000 miles a year it would take me 20yrs for a diesel to be advantageous so is really a no brainer for me .
Both the Mazda Dealers asked how many miles per year and both immediately said Petrol .
But unlike alot of other deales Mazda dealers can offer the same spec in petrol or diesel where as many of the others cant ..
TOYOTA rav 4 only offers a petrol in auto and i hate auto's
Audi only offer a petrol in permanent 4 wheel drive , don't need 4wd
Tiguan too small and VED tax is high
Honda VED TAX is way too high ,,
A work colleague has recently brought a Ford diesel ( he said he had to buy it it was a bargain brand new )and is disappointed in the MPG he gets , but when he took it back to the dealer he was asked about his use of the car , and was told he didn't drive it far enough or even get it anywhere near the optimum operating temp for a diesel also he should make sure he does a 20 -30 minute trip down a motorway or equivalent to burn of the excess diesel or he would be facing a big bill for a new particular filter .. that wasn't covered under warranty and would be down to driver misuse ..
So rather seems pointless to have to go and burn more fuel just to keep your engine / filter in good condition rather defeats the object IMO ...
I have told him he has been mis-sold his car as it doesn't suit his lifestyle i.e doesn't need a diesel
But I suppose if a sales person can quote better MPG at you over a petrol , its a great selling tool , the fact that you wont benefit from a diesel because of the type of trips you do is no concern to the sales person , the only concern to him is how big is your wallet ...
So my main concern is that in the UK we are being sold Diesel cars that customers don't actually need ..
So my advice is do your homework 1st
Diesel at the pump cost more than petrol per liter
Diesel Engines have higher maintenance costs
Diesels Engined Vehicles Variants cost more
All this equals you have to do allot more miles to get the Benefits of a diesel .
I do also accept though some might require a diesel for the Torque etc.. but again that's dependent on their driving lifestyle
In my case a Petrol wins hands down
But don't let the salesman sell you s diesel based on MPG , do your homework 1st .
As I dont do enough miles per year 6K max
My journeys wouldn't get a diesel engine warm enough to take advantage of the MPG that a diesels offer
I know the advantages of driving diesel torque etc... As I have a works vehicle that's diesel. but this my own private car .
I did a cost comparison where you enter the costs of the car and the average mpg and the price of fuel and the miles done in a year
I compared the CX5 2.0 PETROL SEL AND CX5 2.2 D SEL with 6000 miles a year it would take me 20yrs for a diesel to be advantageous so is really a no brainer for me .
Both the Mazda Dealers asked how many miles per year and both immediately said Petrol .
But unlike alot of other deales Mazda dealers can offer the same spec in petrol or diesel where as many of the others cant ..
TOYOTA rav 4 only offers a petrol in auto and i hate auto's
Audi only offer a petrol in permanent 4 wheel drive , don't need 4wd
Tiguan too small and VED tax is high
Honda VED TAX is way too high ,,
A work colleague has recently brought a Ford diesel ( he said he had to buy it it was a bargain brand new )and is disappointed in the MPG he gets , but when he took it back to the dealer he was asked about his use of the car , and was told he didn't drive it far enough or even get it anywhere near the optimum operating temp for a diesel also he should make sure he does a 20 -30 minute trip down a motorway or equivalent to burn of the excess diesel or he would be facing a big bill for a new particular filter .. that wasn't covered under warranty and would be down to driver misuse ..
So rather seems pointless to have to go and burn more fuel just to keep your engine / filter in good condition rather defeats the object IMO ...
I have told him he has been mis-sold his car as it doesn't suit his lifestyle i.e doesn't need a diesel
But I suppose if a sales person can quote better MPG at you over a petrol , its a great selling tool , the fact that you wont benefit from a diesel because of the type of trips you do is no concern to the sales person , the only concern to him is how big is your wallet ...
So my main concern is that in the UK we are being sold Diesel cars that customers don't actually need ..
So my advice is do your homework 1st
Diesel at the pump cost more than petrol per liter
Diesel Engines have higher maintenance costs
Diesels Engined Vehicles Variants cost more
All this equals you have to do allot more miles to get the Benefits of a diesel .
I do also accept though some might require a diesel for the Torque etc.. but again that's dependent on their driving lifestyle
In my case a Petrol wins hands down
But don't let the salesman sell you s diesel based on MPG , do your homework 1st .
Similar threads
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 4K