Do The Sums Add Up?

Submitted: Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 19:11
ThreadID: 29849 Views:2887 Replies:9 FollowUps:11
This Thread has been Archived
G'Day All,
So a friend is in the market for a large 4x4 wagon and was looking at some of the current run out deals i:e Discovery 3 which is offering a lot of car for the dough.
Discovery 3 V6 Petrol S $49,990 driveaway Metallic paint extra 15.2l/100
Discovery3 TDV6 Diesel S $59,990 driveaway Metallic extra 10.4l/100

The dealer says which model and the mate replies definately the diesel.
The dealer did the sums at Monday's cheaper rate of ULP over Diesel,calculated the petrol uses around 5l/100 more fuel but is cheaper and to recoup the 10k extra purchase price the break even point is at the 275,000 klm mark. This is starting to throw a different slant on things as he does not tow and essentially wants a large touring wagon.LPG is also an option for extra range and economy.
The way we are being crucified on the price of fuel makes the next purchase a very careful decision.
Cheers Mark
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: desert - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 20:02

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 20:02
Too true. The other consideration is runnings costs of each. Which should include periodic servicing, quantity of fluids and costs of same and filter and incidentals costs. Need to project those costs over, say, a 12 month period and factor those expenses into the sums.
AnswerID: 149468

Follow Up By: snailbait (Blue mntns) - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:40

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:40
hi desert
what do you drive a petrol or deisel
Life MEMBER snailbait Oberon HF RADIO CLUB VKE237 mobile 7661

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 402735

Follow Up By: desert - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:07

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:07
Mine is diesel and I have done the sums.But it's not my everyday wheels, I use a "normal" sedan for commuting, partly due to the costs of running a large,heavy 4x4. The only time it comes out to play is for work around the farm,playing in the desert etc,etc.
FollowupID: 402816

Reply By: Willem - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:02

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:02
Anything diesel is always going to cost more in the immediate future and possibly in the long run as well

Diesel fuel of course is more obtainable in remote parts of Australia if the inclination is to go there.

If the intention is to drive within the boundaries of "civilisation" then it is best to spend your money on a ULP powered vehicle
AnswerID: 149485

Reply By: Member - Captain (WA) - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:19

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:19
But don't forget resale value. Assuming say 25% depreciation over 3 years (typical red book value), if he sells he will only lose $2,500 of the difference between the 2 vehicles. Thus you really only have $2,500 to buy the extra petrol (~68,500kms) before you break even!!!


AnswerID: 149488

Reply By: snailbait (Blue mntns) - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:31

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 21:31
The sums do add up when you look at the Turbo engine
What ever vehicle you look at to purchase the natral asprated engine can not compete with the turbo engine in ether Deisel Or Petrol
your figeres are based on sea level tourining (sorry for the spelling ) and Austrailia is not flat
to give some examples
I had a 4.7 carb vehicle which got 2 klm per litre when traviling in Low range at 1900 metres that is 35 ltres per 100 kls we were in the high country of Vic
A FRIEND of mine with a DISCO 3 HAS a 4.000 ltre petrol lhas complained about how far he got on a tank ful of petrol in the VIC high country
But while he is complaning the deisel people are saying how great the ecominy is on the deisel
now why is this so
the deisel is turbo and performs at alitude like it is at sea level
the petrol is nat asperated and only performs at sea leval at altitude it does not perform
deisel has a calrific value of some 114000 BTU british thermal unites
petrol has a calarific value of some 40000 Btu so you get a beter bang out of deisel
now you say but the engine is half the size not so the 2.7 (FORD ) v6 ENGINE manufactured in South Austrailia is turbo charged which means it performs like a 5.4 ltr nat asperated petrol engine
but wait for it it give halves the fuel usage of the 4.00 ltre petrol
on reflection i would think younwould get your money back at about 100.000 ks
sorry for the spelling but i uselll have spell check
Life MEMBER snailbait Oberon HF RADIO CLUB VKE237 mobile 7661

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 149493

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:53

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:53
Do you really reckon that Australia has enough altitude anyware to seriously affect engine performance? If that's the case then people in other countries where they have REAL mountains must be in a heck of a lot of trouble.....

I'd suggest that the difference is more to do with petrol v diesel in low range (off road) conditions. In my experience in rough (slow) conditions petrol models will allways use a lot more fuel than a diesel. This is the type of usage that diesels were designed for. The diesel will lug at low revs whereas the petrol needs to rev to get the power.

Stuff all to do with altitude.
FollowupID: 402834

Follow Up By: snailbait (Blue mntns) - Saturday, Jan 21, 2006 at 15:08

Saturday, Jan 21, 2006 at 15:08
mr Bitchi
All petrol nat asperated suffer up to 1000 metre around Sydney the top of the Blue mountains and so do nat asperated diesel suffer
but turbo / super charge engines dont suffer
and when you go outback NSW you are going up and down between 300 mt up to 1100 mtrs then the engins perform as if it is at sea level
an example
Formula 1 racing in the past raced on tracks which were at varying altitudes the allititudes ranged from sea level like Melbourne to Mexsco
etc( forgive) the spelling the formula 1 cars had a turbo petrol engine of 1.6 ltr and the nat aspirated engine of 3 ltr Formula 1 finaly did away with turbo/super charged in favour of the nat aspirated because it gave the turbo /super charged to much advantige on tracks that were higher than 500 met
so dont think it does not work in Australia it does
i drove my 2.5 turbo 5 cyl deisel 2 tonne monster full of camp gear from Port Macquarie to Glenbrook in the Blue mountans and clocked up 32 mpg / 9.7 lt /100 ks / 10.5 kls a ltr
Life MEMBER snailbait Oberon HF RADIO CLUB VKE237 mobile 7661

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

FollowupID: 403375

Reply By: arthurking83 - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 22:03

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 22:03
On the topic of resale values...
in 1999 I was contemplating the purchase of a Disco.
The price back then was even for both TDi and V8. (it was coming up to runout time)

Now I've been looking for the last year or so for a similar vehicle (I can't now due to non-existant finances!)
But I was alarmed thatthe TDI's were $5K+ over a less travelled V8 of the same vintage!
They still are holding their value better (quick look through the trading post) so, One would assume the trend to continue, especially as the price of fuel(s) will continue upwards!! ie. the break even point will come down!

eg. @ your quoted fuel consumption figure.......
$1.20 for both fuels,

petrol will cost $18.24/100km, the diesel will cost $12.48/100km..........$5.76 difference

6 months time........
$2.00 for both fuels :/

petrol will cost $30.40/100km, diesel will cost $20.80/100km.....$9.60 difference!

So if you(your mate) intend to keep the vehicle for 5 years, go diesel!
It's only going to get worse!!

Go with the diesel..........or save the $10K into a term depsosit, and collect $400/yr in interest!
That'll get you 2192.98 km on the petrol

Problem with the gas conversion........where do you put the tank on a S3 disco?
AnswerID: 149497

Follow Up By: marcus - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 18:34

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 18:34
Rangies and disco's usually use the sill tanks.
FollowupID: 402941

Reply By: JustyWhyalla - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 23:08

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 23:08
Friend and I were discussing this once...... Another interesting point that came out of that conversation was it is easier week by week to find the $$$ to be able to tour in the more economical diesel. (Assuming repayments don't keep you on bread and water!)

Often the difference in repayments over the month isn't that much compared with the extra day to day cost coming out of your pocket to fuel the petrol vehicle.
AnswerID: 149512

Reply By: Dave198 - Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 23:35

Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006 at 23:35
Quite often the higher fuel consumption of the petrol vehicle means that an extra tank is more of a necessity (or carry extra Jerrys). What is the cost of an extra tank?
If carrying extra Jerrys, where do you put them?
AnswerID: 149520

Follow Up By: gramps - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:14

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 08:14

In my case, a long range tank would cost around $1,000 for a lousy 40L extra. Not worth it by a long shot. Easier to carry five jerrys (100L) under the ute canopy.
FollowupID: 402820

Reply By: Robin - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:19

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:19
Hi Mark

I choose the Patrol series of vehicles and the various motoring organizations life cycle costs also showed that a petrol model was cheaper overall than the diesel model I looked at.

Mainly because depreciation is major cost on new vehicles.

While the data has proved to be correct over the time I have had mine, it can be hard for some to face the higher weekly fuel bill.

Overall I judged that running costs were not significantly different either way and hence made my descision on other factors.
In the series I vehicles I choose there was a huge performance difference and hence it made it easy for me to choose the petrol.

Robin Miller
AnswerID: 149566

Reply By: cookymonster - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:16

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:16
I'm always reading these posts and I just DON'T get it. Your mate is looking at spending $50,000 to $60,000 on a 4x4 - read again $50,000 - $60,000 without accessories.
I don't know about you, but this is a LOT of money.
If you do 400kms per week and it costs you $60 in fuel and a more fuel efficient vehicle costs $40 ($20 saving) then that's only $1040 over a year.
Truely, if you're spending that much on a car, then get the one that drives better. If you like the way the diesel feels, then buy it, if you prefer the bigger power (overtaking, acceleration) that petrol usually gives, then buy the bloody petrol.
If range is going to be an issue get the long range tank or jerries or buy the diesel.
If you can't afford the fuel - then maybe you're playing above your limits.
I have a Hilux Sr5 dual cab (2003) and that was a $50k+ car with accessories. I wanted the auto V6 because the previous model diesel was weak. I've driven the new one and woudl consider upgrading because of the range and it's powerful motor. However I'm sure once I drive the 4.0 with 175km compared to my current 3.4l with 124kw I'm quite positive that's the way I'll be going (with a long range tank).
I've got so many friends with diesels than run out and spend thousands on exhaust, powerchip, throttle, etc improvements to get more power from their 4x4.
Maybe he should buy the petrol, keep the $10,000 in a seperate bank account called MY FUEL - then use it like a Fuel card. He'll go a long way on the difference between Diesel and petrol fuel consumption.
AnswerID: 149593

Follow Up By: gramps - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:28

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 11:28

Yep, a constant source of amusement when people spend upwards of $50K on a 4wd WITHOUT accessories then agonize over maybe a $1k difference in fuel costs over a year.

I'm no different, did the same thing myself LOL And we are supposed to be at the top of the tree on this planet. Funny critters we humans :))))))))
FollowupID: 402861

Follow Up By: arthurking83 - Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 23:19

Thursday, Jan 19, 2006 at 23:19
The only problem with this reply is that NOWHERE did the OP specify that his mate does 400km/week!

maybe he does 1000km/week!

Maybe like me, he does 1500km/week :)

BTW, he could buy the petrol disco, fit 11 fitch fuel catalysts, :) and not only save fuel, but also produce it while driving along, thus putting back something for the environment!

FollowupID: 403029

Follow Up By: gramps - Friday, Jan 20, 2006 at 00:26

Friday, Jan 20, 2006 at 00:26
Very true Arthur, very true ... about the 11 fitch fuel catalysts that is :))))

My reply was aimed more at the 'average', if there is such a beast, purchaser YMMV LOLOL
FollowupID: 403044

Follow Up By: cookymonster - Friday, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:51

Friday, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:51
Sorry Arthur - should have added "example:" I was indicating that they are the kms he's talking about, it's just that that is actually higher than the 'real' average MOST drivers do. I often do 400kms in a few days around town. I occassionally trip to Mt Isa or Cairns, etc. Without going on proper long trips I would do more kms than the average person. This weekend I'm travelling 150kms to get some new tyres (because the bloke was very helpful a few years ago and I want to give him my money), and then heading another couple of hundred kms for a night of camping (drinking) and will most likely do a fair bit on sand.
I also tow my 5.4m Fibreglass boat regularly.
My 4x4 gets worse fuel economy than you'd think - especially towing.
However I haven't felt the urge to go diesel because if I'm doing lots of driving - I LIKE TO ENJOY IT. The example of me driving to get new tyres tomorrow basically 300+ kms will most likely cost me $40+ in fuel (and there are plenty of tyre places less than 10 minutes from my house). I like driving - getting away - maybe I'd like it just as much in the diesel option - but I doubt it.
I am not against diesels, I think they're great, they just don't suit my driving style. So the argument actually gets stronger for me the MORE kms you do.
I trust this makes sense.
FollowupID: 403098

Follow Up By: cookymonster - Friday, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:58

Friday, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:58
whoops - I meant to say : "I WASN'T indicating that they are the kms he's talking about" in the last post - sorry for the confusion.

1500kms per week are EXTREME kms in anyones book. Basically if you keep that up EVERY single week for a year or more, then you would definitely start thinking about economy and maybe about spending less time in your car :)
That's a trip to Brisbane from Townsville EVERY single week.
That's 20+ hours per week in your car seat. Or 3 hours per day, EVERY day.
I hope you spent some dollars on upgraded seats.
FollowupID: 403101

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)