Is diesel still worth if for large SUV?
Discussion
Looking at buying an XC90, and really don't know if I should for for diesel or petrol.
Diesel running costs are lower, but what do people think will happen to the value of it when I go to sell in 5ish years time?
I'm worried the government are going to do something stupid to kill the value.
Diesel running costs are lower, but what do people think will happen to the value of it when I go to sell in 5ish years time?
I'm worried the government are going to do something stupid to kill the value.
It would depend if you live in, or close to the existing and ever expanding ULEZ areas or areas where there's a strong likelihood of ULEZ being introduced in the foreseeable future, such as:-
https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/uk-low-emissions-zon...
https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/uk-low-emissions-zon...
Screenwash said:
Noticeably better mpg from the diesel I would think?
Until recently most petrol SUVs were invariably gutless and/or thirsty with less than 3l under the bonnet.
Yeah, about 32mpg from the petrol, and 39mpg on the diesel. The petrol has 15HP more so I guess they've tuned that engine more to try and get some more out of it. Until recently most petrol SUVs were invariably gutless and/or thirsty with less than 3l under the bonnet.
Running cost wise petrol is probably about 10-20% more. We only do about 8K miles a year. I wish I had a looking glass to see what future diesel prices will be like!
Screenwash said:
Noticeably better mpg from the diesel I would think?
Until recently most petrol SUVs were invariably gutless and/or thirsty with less than 3l under the bonnet.
Not always.Until recently most petrol SUVs were invariably gutless and/or thirsty with less than 3l under the bonnet.
My Wife has had three Jeep Grand Cherokees. A 4.0 petrol, a 4.7 V8 petrol and a 3.0 V6 turbo diesel.
The diesel returned noticeably the worst fuel economy, whether around town or on the motorway. Those V6 Mercedes turbo diesels are absolute junk IMO.
105.4 said:
Not always.
My Wife has had three Jeep Grand Cherokees. A 4.0 petrol, a 4.7 V8 petrol and a 3.0 V6 turbo diesel.
The diesel returned noticeably the worst fuel economy, whether around town or on the motorway. Those V6 Mercedes turbo diesels are absolute junk IMO.
They sound like three very thirsty engines!!My Wife has had three Jeep Grand Cherokees. A 4.0 petrol, a 4.7 V8 petrol and a 3.0 V6 turbo diesel.
The diesel returned noticeably the worst fuel economy, whether around town or on the motorway. Those V6 Mercedes turbo diesels are absolute junk IMO.
twizzl said:
They sound like three very thirsty engines!!
The 4.0 and the 4.7 would be about the same around town, with the 4.7 a bit better on the motorway.For me, the thirsty one was the 3.0td. Far, far worse than the 300tdi Land Rover that I had.
I’ve had the same engine in a Sprinter van, and it was a thirsty engine in that as well, even when the van was empty.
The OP's question is about the purchase of a new car, meaning it's going to be one of Volvo's 2.0Ts.
I think it will come down to preference factors rather than overwhelmingly fuel type - whether it's drive quality, price or availability. I helped a relative buy a diesel XC90 last year, though admittedly it was a used car and those available were predominately diesels in that age range.
Many any people who buy a large family-orientated vehicle like an XC90 see themselves doing long trips on holidays while loaded with people and gear. So long as you understand that a diesel will need to be driven as intended (periodic long distances), then I don't think the fuel type will overcome other reasons listed above.
I think it will come down to preference factors rather than overwhelmingly fuel type - whether it's drive quality, price or availability. I helped a relative buy a diesel XC90 last year, though admittedly it was a used car and those available were predominately diesels in that age range.
Many any people who buy a large family-orientated vehicle like an XC90 see themselves doing long trips on holidays while loaded with people and gear. So long as you understand that a diesel will need to be driven as intended (periodic long distances), then I don't think the fuel type will overcome other reasons listed above.
Look at the alternatives and compare cost.
If you're doing stop / start town driving get the petrol or hybrid.
Diesel will be around for ages because for big cars / vans/ 4x4s there's little alternative.
If in doubt lease a diesel. I did.
My friend has a newish xc90 diesel 240 and averages 43mpg. I cant image a 4pot petrol getting more than 25-30 mpg.
If you're doing stop / start town driving get the petrol or hybrid.
Diesel will be around for ages because for big cars / vans/ 4x4s there's little alternative.
If in doubt lease a diesel. I did.
My friend has a newish xc90 diesel 240 and averages 43mpg. I cant image a 4pot petrol getting more than 25-30 mpg.
Desiderata said:
8000 miles is only about £1400 worth of diesel per year, or about £1700 worth of petrol.
Personally, I do big mileages with heavy loads and enjoy the easy torque of a big diesel, but I don't think for your usage the biggest influencing factor on a £50K+ car should be fuel costs.
Op's main consideration was future value, not the negligible difference in his own running costs on petrol v diesel.Personally, I do big mileages with heavy loads and enjoy the easy torque of a big diesel, but I don't think for your usage the biggest influencing factor on a £50K+ car should be fuel costs.
Personally I would get the car that suits you, not what suits the next owner. Diesel would always be my preference for a large car. Its a shame they don't do the T8 hybrid coupled to the diesel engine instead of their thirsty petrol.
As for people saying you 'need' more than a 2.0 in a big SUV, I suppose they have more experience in developing and making cars than Volvo and Volvo have got it all wrong. Yes, a 3.0 diesel like the X5 would be nice, but the XC90 is never going to be a sporty car and if you don't need a huge towing capacity then the 2.0d is perfectly adequate for most of the people most of the time.
I don't know why people worry so much about this sort of thing. The dieselgate saga kicked off eight years ago. Ever since then the Nervous Nellies have been predicting that any day now the gubmint will introduce legislation that makes diesel powered cars worthless. Still hasn't happened, in fact even my decrepit old euro5 daily isn't worth too much less than I paid for it four years (and 50000 miles) ago. Given that there is now a date set for the banning of the sale of all ICE vehicles, why people think the govt is going to waste time singling out diesels further than they already have I don't know. Tbh I think that relatively large cc diesels that are capable of getting s
t done will be very much sought after for a very long time yet, which is partly why my next car is likely to be a diesel Land Cruiser.
t done will be very much sought after for a very long time yet, which is partly why my next car is likely to be a diesel Land Cruiser.twizzl said:
Screenwash said:
Noticeably better mpg from the diesel I would think?
Until recently most petrol SUVs were invariably gutless and/or thirsty with less than 3l under the bonnet.
Yeah, about 32mpg from the petrol, and 39mpg on the diesel. The petrol has 15HP more so I guess they've tuned that engine more to try and get some more out of it. Until recently most petrol SUVs were invariably gutless and/or thirsty with less than 3l under the bonnet.
Running cost wise petrol is probably about 10-20% more. We only do about 8K miles a year. I wish I had a looking glass to see what future diesel prices will be like!
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff