Skip navigation
60047 Visits Today

The great diesel fuel efficiency myth

  • image

    Diesel prices are set to rise, and your diesel car may not be as efficient as you think it is.

Diesels are less efficient than you think - and prices are about to rise.

Drivers of diesel cars are about to feel more pain at the pump as figures show they’re less efficient around town than owners expect. Adding to the anguish is the imminent seasonal increase in demand for the fuel in China, Europe and North America, which pushes up prices globally.

Oil companies use diesel to also make heating oil, which adds price pressure as the northern hemisphere heads into winter. “All the heating oils have gone up and that’s not uncommon at this time of year,” says the NRMA’s Peter Khoury.

The average price of diesel has risen to more than $1.60 per litre in recent weeks, up to 20 cents a litre dearer than unleaded petrol at its discount peak and on par with premium unleaded fuels.

Even though sales of diesel vehicles have tripled over the past 10 years, diesel passenger cars still only account for 4 per cent of new cars sold while diesel SUVs account for 10 per cent and diesel utes and vans 15 per cent. “Despite the increasing popularity of diesel cars the fuel itself is still bought in relatively low volume at service stations, so there is not as much competition driving prices down,” said Mr Khoury.

Figures from the Australian Institute of Petroleum show that only 25 per cent of all diesel is sold at service stations; 75 per cent is bought in bulk by the mining and agriculture industries. Of the diesel fuel sold at service stations about 80 per cent is bought by the long-haul trucking industry which gets a 12 cents per litre rebate from the Federal Government.

The concession to trucking companies cuts their fuel excise to 26 cents per litre. The mining and agriculture industries pay no excise as they’re entitled to a full rebate of 38 cents per litre. Drivers of diesel cars pay 38 cents per litre in fuel excise, the same as drivers of unleaded vehicles.

Meanwhile Australia’s love affair with diesel cars may prove to be misguided for some buyers. Figures from the Federal Government’s Green Vehicle Guide show that while diesel cars are more efficient on the open road than petrol cars, their advantage is diminished greatly in city and suburban driving.

“You still get savings in a diesel car but the reality is the savings aren’t as great if you’re only driving around town,” said Mr Khoury. “Plus, some of the latest petrol engines are almost as efficient as diesel engines, and in most cases petrol cars are cheaper to buy.”

The latest Volkswagen Golf 90TSI petrol sips an average of 5.4L/100k, just a fraction more than the superseded Golf 77TDI which uses 5.2L/100km, according to Green Vehicle Guide fuel rating label figures.

“It comes down to individual driving habits,” said Mr Khoury. “People need to do their research and find what suits them best. If you do a lot of open road driving a diesel might make more sense, but around town some of the new petrol engines might be better.”

2013 Volkswagen Golf 90TSI
$24,990
Around town: 6.6L/100km
Open road: 4.7L/100km
Combined cycle: 5.4L/100km

2009 Volkswagen Golf 77TDI
$29,990
Around town: 6.1L100km
Open road: 4.6L/100km
Combined cycle: 5.2L/100km

Why diesel is expensive

  • Diesel is the dominant fuel in Asia and a sharp rise in demand for diesel in India and China has pushed up prices.
  • Demand for diesel in Australia has increased with the mining boom.
  • The supply of diesel has not kept pace with the growth in demand.
  • The price of diesel is affected by demand for other products it also is used to produce, including jet fuel, kerosene and heating oil.

Who buys diesel?

  • Only 25 per cent of diesel sold in Australia is sold at service stations; the remaining 75 per cent of diesel is bought in bulk by the mining and agriculture industries.
  • Of the 25 per cent of diesel sold in Australia at service stations, less than a third of it is bought by private customers -- passenger cars: 4 per cent; SUVs: 10 per cent; utes and vans: 15 per cent. 
  • Those three vehicle categories -- passenger cars, SUVs and utes -- consumed an estimated 2000 million litres of diesel last year.
  • Trucks consumed 9600 million litres of diesel last year.

Why diesel isn't expensive compared to the rest of the world

 

Australia is the sixth cheapest country for diesel fuel among the 29 OECD countries, according to March 2013 figures from the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics.

This is largely because Australia has the sixth lowest tax rate in the OECD. Only Japan, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States have cheaper diesel fuel.

 

This reporter is on Twitter: @JoshuaDowling

 

Comments on this story

Displaying 3 of 133 comments

  • This is rubbish

    Sgt Schultz Posted on 22 April 2014 9:18pm
  • idiotic, false article.

    Rob Soldan Posted on 06 April 2014 4:17am
  • The comparison is completely wrong at least for Golf petrol engine. Golf engine requires premium unleaded (98 RON) and the price of 98 been always more than diesel. Wrong information is provided and wrong conclusion is made!

    Martin Posted on 04 March 2014 1:53pm
  • Too many comments to read all but if you factor in price difference at purchase and increased maintenance costs the only reason to go for a diesel is towing capacity. I would recoup the price difference between my Kluger compared to Prado in about 25+ years. It all comes down to lifestyle (towing). In terms of petrol costs, I have done an 8 month analysis of both my Kluger (3.5L) and Yaris (1.3L) and basically the price of 95 and 98 needs to reduce by 10c/L to be equal. This means that 95 should be no more that 3c/L dearer and 98 no more 7c/L dearer compared to E10/unleaded. This is a similar price difference that I have seen the NRMA saying should be the actual.

    Jason Smith of central coast Posted on 20 December 2013 6:26pm
  • I chose a diesel for my recent SUV upgrade simply because the extra torque made it more pleasurable to drive compared to its petrol counterpart. The 30% better fuel economy is a bonus really.

    Darren Cos of Australia Posted on 25 November 2013 11:44pm
  • Jaime, this is the first I've heard of an additional tax surcharge for diesel. I don't think it exists! Or are you just confusing it with the rebate for primary producers and miners which is a waiving of the excise, and not an additional tax on the retail consumer? And for the ordinary motorist maintenance costs can be astronomical!

    Alex J Golfer of Burpengary Posted on 05 November 2013 11:27am
  • Diesel is expensive because of an additional tax surcharge over Petrol. Also Diesel engines last longer and require less maintenance.

    Jamie Posted on 04 November 2013 6:41pm
  • Diesel (good): much better fuel efficiency, engines last a lot longer and can run on waste oil from fish & chip shop (if necessary) Diesel (bad): cost of engine / injector repairs will make your eyes water

    Dave Dee of Perth Posted on 04 November 2013 6:16pm
  • Toyota Hybrid, 152kw, runs on E10 and delivers 1100km for a full tank.

    nerd Posted on 04 November 2013 11:38am
  • this story is rubbish diesel engines spin at lower RPM and consume less litres of fuel per distance travelled. If trucks used petrol engines you would be paying $ 40 for a loaf of bread. the author has an agenda me thinks

    me mechanic of switzerland Posted on 03 November 2013 10:39pm
  • I have a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4x2 petrol and with an 8 speed gearbox. I am returning 9.5 liters/100 kms around the city with some country driving. Newer vehicles with higher gear ratios and improved engines are becoming very comparable to diesel's fuel efficiency.

    Robert Stevens of Melbourne Posted on 03 November 2013 7:27pm
  • Ask anyone that has made the transition to a modern diesel if they plan on going back and I'm sure they all say no. I have a VW GTD and a friend the GTI, we drive a similar way and I get around 770km in city driving where she is lucky to make 430. They both cost around the same to fill and mine is $100 more to service (once per year). For me my daily driver is going to stay a diesel.

    Rob of Sydney Posted on 02 November 2013 11:45pm
  • Have driven diesel cars for some time, our last purchase we drove both diesel and petrol alternatives in respective models the diesel alternative is by far the most efficient by as much as 4ltrs per 100klms if the world sends the price of diesel up this does not change the efficiency of the fuel, it changes the prices comparison at the bowser which is artificial.

    Michael Fry of Australia Posted on 02 November 2013 9:25am
  • to those whinging about diesel being carcinogenic, Wake up. there are several ring compounds in petrol, and any car with more than 50k klms isnt doing much to 'catalyse' the exhaust gas anywhere due to the platinum having worn off the substrate in the convertor (and alot of cars dont even run them)... ULP is terribly carcinogenic, and i believe its the biggest contributor to the rise of cancer in the developed world. Ive bought tdi jetta, and i cant fault it. torque is awesome, its brilliant on trips, canberra to hobart via launceston with touring around devenport and launceston for 3 days, all on one fill up (50 lt)... i agree the clouds of smelly soot from older tech diesels without dpf is choking and not nice, but certainly doesnt make your lungs burn and eyes water like being behind a turbo petrol car when its on boost and doing 10:1 air fuel ratio and belching raw unburnt fuel out the exhaust... Id prefer LPG be promoted more, its awesome tech, but diesel is also brilliant. im chipping mine soon, swedish company, 140 to 191 hp and 320 to 431 nm... cant beat that, and then next year, ill buy an amarok to replace my sucky aurion (worst car ive owned)

    meeso of canberra Posted on 02 November 2013 8:54am
  • Or is it simply an excuse by servos to charge more for diesel to offset losses incurred in the discount cycle of petrol pricing

    Mark Posted on 02 November 2013 7:40am
  • Except that TSi (and similar ilk) don't get anywhere near the claimed efficiency either. The small capacity turbo cars are efficient at steady state driving but when you use the turbo to accelerate around the suburbs the fuel consumption increases markedly.

    thatguy Posted on 31 October 2013 9:37pm
  • Diesel may be cheaper in NZ, but it is nowhere as cheap as it used to be. The author neglected to mention that diesel in NZ isn't taxed at the pump and every diesel vehicle on the road there is subject to a Road User Charge (RUC). The RUC costs $53/1000km for a vehicle with 2 axles and weighing less than 3.5 tonnes, up to $252/1000km for a 3-axle truck, plus the cost of the RUC for the trailer/s the truck tows.

    Mel of WA Posted on 30 October 2013 9:36pm
  • I would just like to point out that most diesels cost more than there petrol counterparts, in most cases you would need to travel 200,000 kms to recover the costs.

    Nick Posted on 30 October 2013 8:50am
  • The mistake most people make is to compare l/km for diesel with l/km for petrol. Diesel has a significantly higher calorific value, which means energy content per volume. Both use reciprocating expansion processes, therefore thermodynamically the process efficiencies are virtually identical. If diesel and petrol were sold on energy content value, diesel would be much more expensive, and you would save no money driving one - it would be more expensive than a petrol engine because of the maintenance demands of a diesel.

    Sparky Posted on 29 October 2013 11:16pm
  • Mondeo diesel, 1997cc , Adelaide to Mildura at legal speed.........5.6 litres to 100km. I save $46 per return trip compared to my AU II Falcon, and you try to tell me diesel is not as good as people think!!!!!

    Roundman of Adelaide Posted on 29 October 2013 1:31pm
  • Downsized to a compact French diesel with stop start technology. The fuel economy is excellent. But what a huge rort the industrial diesel subsidy is - huge gift from taxpayers to do what? Distort alternative energy and transport methods to diesel engines.

    GO Posted on 29 October 2013 8:45am
  • One thing most Motoring Journos forget is diesel efficiency gains are a lot more pronounced when you are carrying a load or towing.

    Simon Ireland Posted on 28 October 2013 9:33pm
  • I have an NT Pajero with a chip and 3" inch turbo back free flow system and I regularly get 8 litres /100 on a trip and under 10 around town. The vehicle, as fitted weighs in at 2.48T, and all that from a 3.2L, 4 potter. Its a super engine! I would question the motives of the article writer. In the outback the price difference between fuels is almost non-existent, so a diesel is hard to beat with its greater efficiency and pulling power. Smaller vehicles will be just as proportionally efficient.

    Faereag of Cyberspace Posted on 28 October 2013 4:27pm
  • I drive two BMW in recent years - same model but one is petrol, one is turbo diesel. I put in premium petrol for the former and it did consistently 12L/100km. The diesel one did consistently 7.4L/100km. Even if diesel is the same price as premium petrol, it still wins hands down.

    TM Leung of Sydney Posted on 28 October 2013 8:53am
  • @Nikko Let's see how you fare when you bounce off one of those nanny tanks . It will cost you a lot more than 10 grand ,especially if you keep testing that 4.1 second time (which is slow by bike standards anyway). I'll be sure to wave next time you're out in the torrential rain as I drive past wink

    Neal of Cairns Posted on 27 October 2013 2:47pm
  • My motorcycle does 3L/100km while running 0-100 in 4.1 seconds when I want it, while only costing $9,500 brand new and the combined 12 months rego/insurance cost the same as just rego on a V6. Keep your diesel and petrol nanny tanks.

    Nikko Posted on 26 October 2013 10:14am
  • These numbers make me weep. My 1998 2.6 litre commercial ute uses over 20 litres per 100k! That's more than my old Falcon wagon ever used.

    Martin of Ingle Farm Posted on 25 October 2013 1:32pm
  • PS: Diesel does take more to process than petrol as it now has to comply with the Euro regs so we can use it in the new turbo diesels without killing them. Secondly, our Skyline would use as little as 12l/100km if we were careful (real careful) but if we put the foot down the needle on the fuel gauge acted like a tacho. The Astra however will do 7.3l/100km at 170kph! (I will deny all knowledge of the latter statement if questioned by the police)

    Steve Phillips of Perth Posted on 24 October 2013 8:54am
  • Our diesel Astra has consistantly used less fuel than Holden claims it would. 5.7L/100km (averaged over 6 years) for city driving. It has far more pick-up than a 2L petrol. More like V8 torque. I would find it very hard to return to a petrol driven car now Ive been treated to the go of a diesel turbo. By the by our car before the Astra was an R33 Skyline.

    Steve Phillips of Perth Posted on 24 October 2013 8:31am
  • Actually in Thailand the price of Diesel is about $AU1

    LOL of Perth Posted on 24 October 2013 2:44am
  • Your comparing a 2013 petrol to a 2009 Diesel. I'm not sure if your aware of this but you couldn't buy a 2013 petrol in 2009. You need to compare like with like. - 2013 90TSI has a combined of 5.4l/100km - 2013 110TDI has a combined of 4.9l/100km The diesel has more power and uses less fuel. It generally has a greater range as well. If I'm running highways in my Skoda my computer shows a range of over 1000kms after its settled down after a refuel and 10min of driving - a diesel. I don't get anywhere near that in the city :( I think its more important to look at the Total Cost of Ownership. Insurance, servicing, depreciation. Focusing on fuel in isolation will not lead to a optimal conclusion with regard to cost.

    Andy of Sydney Posted on 23 October 2013 2:56pm
  • Parts and servicing are also usually more expensive for diesel vehicles. Those that travel long distances frequently (such as long haul truck drivers) will recoup the cost. If you drive 100KM a week... probably not.

    John Adams of Greenmount Posted on 23 October 2013 1:08pm
  • One factor that I have not noticed in these comments. The Government has no incentive in lower costs for diesel. They are getting more GST while the price gouge continue.

    steppy5 of Victor Harbor Posted on 23 October 2013 12:33am
  • Josh, you're correct when you say "Diesels are less efficient than you think", but I believe that sentiment carries across to petrol cars as well. I'm currently getting 6.2 L/100km on a Brissy / Sydney run on my large diesel SUV, going through traffic jams and all. I don't even refuel along the way. Speaks for itself, really.

    Ray of Bris Posted on 22 October 2013 6:07pm
  • My VW Passat gets low 6s around town and I can get to Brisbane and most of the way back on a single tank. 125km/350nm. Drives better than a 2l petrol and uses far less fuel.

    Michael of Sydney Posted on 22 October 2013 5:48pm
  • The original Diesel Engine, by Herr Diesel ran on vegetable oil with no modification. Conspiracy theories suggest he was killed off by the oil companies (he went missing on a boat trip on his way to do a diesel engine deal in London). His invention was later dusted off by the oil companies when they realised they could make use of their waste product and sell it to people!

    Sandpiper Downs Posted on 22 October 2013 3:46pm
  • My VW Golf GTD is plenty quick enough when I need it to be, low end torque is great, and with 90% city driving I have a long term average of 5.5L/100km. I get 1000km per tank when I go on longer journeys. Not more efficient than petrol? You've got to be joking. Or being being paid by an anti diesel lobby!

    Sandpiper Downs Posted on 22 October 2013 3:39pm
  • LPG prices also rise as the northern hemisphere heads into winter, but they don't come down much after winter. I suspect a ripoff and it's probably the same for diesel

    John of Wallaroo SA Posted on 22 October 2013 2:07pm
  • I wouldn't rely on "claimed" economy figures. They're much harder to achieve in a petrol car. I have a Golf 2.0Tdi & an Octavia 1.8Tsi. The golf claims 5.7l/100km, I actually get around 5.5 l/100km. The Octavia claims 6.6l/100. but I usually get about 7.5-8.0l/100km. They both have about 135,000km and get driven and serviced in the same manner. The fuel costs for the diesel v premium are within a can of coke per tank. But the diesel gives me an extra 300km per fill, and is much more relaxing to drive to boot thanks to the extra torque. By the way, diesels only smell if you're a truck driver. An in that case its probably you, not the fuel.

    Bob222 of Canberra Posted on 22 October 2013 12:52pm
  • Lots of ridiculous comparisons here but if you look at the article the author was comparing the latest petrol Golf 7 with the most fuel efficient diesel Golf 6 (which is no longer available in Australia). Their economies are a close match but the petrol has a lot more performance. I have owned the latest petrol Golf 7 (a 90 TSI manual - the least economical of the petrol Golf 7 range) for 16,000km now and its economy is amazing. It has averaged 5.3L/100km overall, it gets down to 4.5L/100km on open road 100 cruising and has smoothness and silence that a diesel could only dream of. It is a real example of one of the truly new generation of petrol engines that the author was talking about. The price of diesel and the 95 unleaded I use is almost identical here in Toowoomba.

    John of Toowoomba Posted on 22 October 2013 10:27am
  • I recently drove a Peugeot 406 HDi from Wellington (NSW) to Brisbane via Sydney- total distance 1450km. Refuelling took 72.5l, giving an average consumption of 5l/100km. Not bad for a 13yr old car with 430K on the clock. By the way, the 406 is much larger than the Golf referred to in the article, being more the size of the Passat.

    Peter F Posted on 22 October 2013 8:21am
  • IF you buy a sedan and you service it properly{toyota|} for example you:ll do 350.000kms easily Who needs a smelly diesel Ive just had to replace the injectors on my Isuzu truck after only 170,000 kms at a cost over $7000.00 All new diesels now have to run at high pressure and the injectors just don"t last

    peter plaisted of nedlands wa Posted on 22 October 2013 4:28am
  • What a load of garbage as I own an E270 CDI 5 cyl Benz and a 2.0 ltr Ford Focus and the Benz does high 5s and low 6s per 100 kms (averaging 117 ) from Perth to Sydney and the Focus is flat out to get low 8s .Go figure.

    Graeme Baird of China Posted on 22 October 2013 1:41am
  • Being the owner of a Benz E270 Diesel for the first time after a TE50 Ford series 3 which was a great car (also have a Ford Focus) I cannot believe the garbage in this story.Travelling from Perth to Sydney and a bit above the speed limit we averaged 5.8 ltrs per 100 according to trip comp.Round town its real heavy as it does 6.5 to 7.0 .Go figure.

    Graeme Baird of China Posted on 22 October 2013 1:38am
  • This article is a complete crock, to use the vernacular, and clearly is written by a petrol-head. Both our cars are diesels and we have not looked back. Why? - The base price of our cars compared to their petrol counterparts were essentially the same, negating the 'diesel is more expensive upfront' myth. - The diesel variants were more efficient and thus qualified for the higher luxury car tax threshold. In fact, the options we added to our car would have attracted over $3000 in LCT had they been on an otherwise-identical petrol variant. - Fuel consumption - demonstrable lower. I estimate at least 30%. My diesel 3 series gets high 6s (in L/100km) and low 7s at worst. And thats urban commuting: on the open road it drops to 5. Our diesel X5 gets around 9 - 9.5L/100km compared to say the diesel Territory at 11 and the petrol Territory at 14 (real-world figures from owners, not the official figures). The X5 can drop below 8 on longer runs - not bad for a 2-tonne car. - Drivability: the torque and effortless ease from a good European diesel is a wonder. I downsized from a VE HSV to a 320d and never looked back.

    Dave of Adelaide Posted on 21 October 2013 4:13pm
  • This article is an exercise in wishful thinking. The figures quoted in it demonstrate exactly the opposite of the claim that diesel cars tend to be more economical on open road. There's the added small problem too that Europeans don't use 91 octane and most imported petrol cars require at least 95 ... which costs a good deal more than 91 and nearer the price of diesel. 2013 Volkswagen Golf 90TSI $24,990 Around town: 6.6L/100km Open road: 4.7L/100km Combined cycle: 5.4L/100km 2009 Volkswagen Golf 77TDI $29,990 Around town: 6.1L100km Open road: 4.6L/100km Combined cycle: 5.2L/100km

    ChrisW of Bris Posted on 21 October 2013 8:37am
  • One important issue that is not mentioned in the article is that diesel engines last a lot longer than petrol engines, so really, if you keep them long enough they are definitely cheaper, with less working parts and the ability to travel twice the distance before croaking. However, if you trade your diesel car in every 2 years you do not reap that benefit. HoseHey of Hervey Bay

    Grahame Wheeler of Hervey Bay Q Posted on 20 October 2013 1:42pm
  • Our Getz 1.6 petrol averaged 7.3l/100km over 200,000km. Our i30 CW 1.6 turbo diesel, so far is averaging 5.5l/100km over 35,000km, driven over the same roads and conditions (60% country/40% city). It is also a more relaxed drive, using the engines torque rather than revs to make progress. I also have a Transit TD van, which gives far better consumption and performance than the old 2.8 litre non turbo diesel Hiace I had. Nowt wrong with a good modern turbo diesel vehicle. PS diesel is NOT cheaper in NZ - it's cheaper at the pumps, but then you have to pay the road user charge on top of that - which makes it much more expensive than Australia.

    JonL of W.A. Posted on 20 October 2013 11:58am
  • Quite a few misconceptions here. 1. Brisbane gas buses. BCC is currently purchasing Volvo chassis with diesel engines. Have done for the last few years. 2. Exhaust emissions. Euro 6 spec diesel engines are cleaner than the existing BCC fleet of NGV powered engines. 3. Range. Gas buses need to be filled up to 3 times per day. Diesel just once. This results in higher running costs and a larger fleet to do the same work. A million dollars buys two and a bit new buses. They are legislated off the road after 21 years. You and I have to fund them. 4. A diesel truck engine is typically good for a million km+. NGV gas engines something significantly less. 5. One gas fuel cylinder costs around $9,000. An articulated bus has nine of them and typically won't last all day. Each cylinder has a service life of 20 years (remember a bus in QLD is ok for 21). 6. Diesel fuel contains more energy per litre than petrol AND diesel engines are typically more efficient at liberating that energy (in the form of heat) than petrol engines and converting it into work. 7. Diesel car purchase price is largely a function of dividing development costs by sales volumes. Diesel isn't going anywhere soon.

    In the Know of Brisbane Posted on 20 October 2013 11:14am
  • I've driven 140k over 5 years in a manual trans european turbo diesel car, for a long term avg of 6.5l/100km. A magnificent combination for driving satisfaction with full torque available at much lower revs than petrol equivalents. The driving experience is much more than numbers.

    OldRevHead of Murray Bridge Posted on 20 October 2013 11:13am
  • Wren - was paying about $80/week, now around $30/week that's only $2600 per year - what was the price differential to purchase the diesel vs petrol?

    Management of Manly Qld Posted on 20 October 2013 11:05am
  • ilove my v8 ss i burn through 22 liters per 100km....... fuels cheap ..get over it .......every ones so worried about fuel per liter cost yet ppl are happy buying scotch at $50 dollars a liter.

    laying rubber in a street near you of canningvale Posted on 19 October 2013 9:53pm
  • Somehow I think this story may have been more effective if the photographer/journalist had bothered to use 50 and 100 dollar bills.

    Andrew Heslop of Drummoyne NSW Posted on 19 October 2013 9:16pm
  • I have a petrol car for commuting and a diesel 4WD for longer trips and family transport. Give me the diesel anytime. I love its economy of 7.5 L/100 km for a 2.4 turbodiesel and the torque. A trailer is taken without any problem. Most important is the distance I can drive on 1 full tank. Diesel, way to go.

    Tara King of Perth Posted on 19 October 2013 9:05pm
  • WHAT A LOAD OF SH*T... DIESELS Are more economical than petrol... whats this bloke got in mind?????

    RICK of Perth, Western Australia Posted on 19 October 2013 8:28pm
  • 1732, did you not read the entire article? The demand for diesel is higher than the current supply as they haven't kept up with it, driving the prices up. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame the oil companies.

    Tetris of WA Posted on 19 October 2013 7:01pm
  • Your example of the economy of the two Golf vehicles doesn't appear to support the aim of the article. The percentage difference between the petrol and diesel versions is higher around town than on the open road. It appears the article is arguing the opposite.

    Phil of Barossa Posted on 19 October 2013 12:16pm
  • In Europe diesel is at least 20 euro cents cheaper than petrol, Australia you are being ripped off again, don't use the exchange rate, it should be cheaper than petrol, and excuses about increased Demand in china & India is crap, they are buying petrol cars because they have a lower initial purchase price (I work in the auto industry) , which country uses heating oil.?

    Andrew of Germany Posted on 19 October 2013 9:23am
  • MY BA FORD RUNS 2E MPG ON HIGHWAY GAS 77 CPL PETROL IT RUNS 26 MPG GAS LESS THAN HALF THE PRICE OF DIESEL POLLUTION ALMOST ZERO SERVICING ALMOST NOTHING ALL YOU PEOPLE RUNNING DIESEL YOUR ONLY DREAMING ! BY THE TIME YOU PAID EXTRA FOR THE CAR AND ALL THE ASSOCIATED SERVICING COSTS NO ONE COMES CLOSE TO ECONOMY AS MY GAS DIESEL OWNERS JUST DREAMING !

    Geoff Thomas of aloundra Posted on 19 October 2013 7:08am
  • My 2013 Octavia 90TSI petrol gives me up to 900kms per 55 litre tank. Much more economical on premium fuel than my older i30 was on regular. With the same size tank the i30 could barely manage 650kms. I gave diesel a thought but am now glad I stuck with petrol.

    Barry in Caloundra Posted on 18 October 2013 10:17pm
  • Go Wren. Woooo Hooooo! Are you seriously driving a diesel??

    jassmitty of central coast Posted on 18 October 2013 9:55pm
  • FFS. I have just returned from Thailand and the Diesel is 20% cheaper than (E20.Yes 20% ethanol). The Oil comps are having a lend of the of us in Oz. I have done a test for 2000Km + of each fuel type (unleaded, E10, E95 and E98) for my each of my two vehicles (Toyota Kluger 3.5L and Yaris 1.3L) and have found that if the price for E95 and E98 were each reduced by 10c/L each then economy of use would even out (i.e. E10 was most economical otherwise). This seems to confirm an NRMA estimation that the difference between E10 and premium should be in the order of 4c/L.

    jassmitty of central coast Posted on 18 October 2013 9:50pm
  • FFS. Just came back from Thailand and the price for Diesel is 15%-20% LOWER than E20 (yes 20% ethanol) over there. The oil comps are simply gorging as much profits as is possible here. Whilst I am mentioning this is I have done a 2000+km per fuel type comparison (E10, E95 and E98) each for my Kluger (3.5L engine) and Yaris (1.3L engine). Suffice to say the E95 and E98 would break even (slightly better fuel economy for the E95 and E98) IF the cost difference between E10 was reduced by 10c/L (i.e. difference E10:E95 was 3c/L rather than 13c/L and E10:E98 was reduced to 7c/L rather that the current 17c/L). NRMA says that the difference (E10: E95 and E98) should be as per my previously results (around 3C/L and 7c/L respectively).

    jassmitty Posted on 18 October 2013 9:25pm
  • Popular culture, I love it! As anyone doing basic thermodynamics would know for a heat engine, the thermal efficiency of a basic internal combustion engine is a function of its "compression ratio" and its "expansion ratio" during the power cycle. As a diesel engine has a higher compression ratio, it naturally has a higher efficiency than a petrol engine. But not to put a too finer point on it, internal combustion engines are not highly efficient, and should have been archived last century along with many errant fools from the 80's. This article is like arguing the difference between eating deep fried donuts or deep fried union rings, they are both technically as bad as each other.

    myopic Posted on 18 October 2013 9:14pm
  • Hmm...Hyundai Getz 1600 petrol - 7.2l/100km ave over 200,000 kms, i30 1.6 diesel, 5.4l/100km ave over 40,000km. .... Diesel is not cheaper in NZ. On top of the pump price, you have to buy road tax in 1000km lots, which brings the price up to a bit higher than Aus.

    JonL Posted on 18 October 2013 4:15pm
  • When you make petrol from crude oil a by product is diesel. Ok it needs to be refined a little these days but to double in price over the last several years, someone is getting richer by the day.

    Ray of Sydney Posted on 18 October 2013 4:04pm
  • Would like to ad a PS. With my petrol car, was getting about 15ltr/100k around the city. With the diesel, getting about 8.5ltr/100k around the city. The car is plenty quick as well. You can't even use the power you have under the bonnet. Too many restrictions anyway. A mate of mine bought an Aston Martin - said to him your car might do 0 to 100 in 4 seconds, mine does 0 - 100 in 8 seconds. All things being equal if we were to drive to Byron Bay, I would still be only 4 seconds behind you, but in fact I would beat you there, as you would have to stop at least 3 times for petrol, and I would get there first. He scratched his head and said "yeah!"

    Wren of Sydney Posted on 18 October 2013 9:06am
  • I traded my petrol 530 BMW for the diesel 520d - was paying about $80/week, now around $30/week and I've increased my distance per week. So really saving a lot. On long distance drives, getting 5.5ltr per 100km. Even though the diesel is more expensive, still saving a lot!

    Wren of Sydney Posted on 18 October 2013 8:59am
  • Why is diesel dearer than petrol anyway, it's a fuel that hasn't got to be refined to the same degree as petrol and diesel was always half the price of petrol until commercial vehicles started using it.it's just a big con by the multi national oil companies and our governments do absolutely nothing about it as the pollies are in the oil companies pockets. Pollies don't pay for their fuel so they couldn't care less, it's a case of " I'm alright Jack" It's disgraceful how the multi national oil companies hold the world to ransome and even stop development of cheap running cars to ensure they can go on doing so. Greed will destroy us all in the end make no mistake about that.

    1732 of Thornlie Posted on 17 October 2013 5:24pm
  • It Depends on If your Diesel is turbo ,I bet that l/cruiser was not turbo getting 14lts to100klm..I have a Nissan patrol turbo it gets about 15lts /100..drive it below 100klms a hour and it does better ..load it up and it's dam awfull..I also have an old F100 1977 model 4X4,351cub motor it gets 26miles per gal (Never worked out KLm .Ltr) and Thats reguardless of head wind tail wind over load makes no difference.but speed does over its power band of 98klm you can watch the fuel gauge drop ..The reason ... I'm submitting this note A friend has just fitted a Hydogen converter to his old Cruiser and it makes a hell of a difference .The converter runs on water and the engine runs better (more power ,,Quieter) the fuel Consumptionis around 30% better and speed makes no difference to it....the converter runs off his battery and draws around 17amps ..it turns on when the motor has been running for 3mins..when the motor is turned off it expels left over gas .............Penny for your thoughts !!???

    Ray Bundy of Qld Posted on 17 October 2013 10:09am
  • Here's some figures to add that are real figures taken from a recent trip.2 identical 80 series landcruisers,1 petrol,1 diesel both loaded to the eyeballs with gear for a camping trip,petrol used 28lts per 100kms,diesel used 14lts per 100kms.Its no myth,diesels have better economy.

    Diesel Dog Posted on 16 October 2013 6:53pm
  • The title of this article suggests something about the efficiency of diesel. I was waiting for a presentation of empirical data that never came, instead the writer went on blabbering about the price of diesel. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the tidbits of info about diesel pricing but I clicked on the link hoping to read something about diesel efficiency. When you said "Diesels are less efficient than you think...." where are the supporting facts?

    benny of adelaide Posted on 16 October 2013 1:55pm
  • An unleaded car can take 91, 95 and 98 unleaded so owners have a choice. But a diesel car can only take diesel so you have no choice. The oil companies have you by the short and curlies.

    Lazza Posted on 16 October 2013 1:43pm
  • As a diesel vehicle driver, I suspect that the high cost of diesel in this country is largely a result of profiteering by the oil companies. Being less refined, diesel is cheaper to produce than unleaded. But my belief is that - with the lower sales volume - the oil companies can see the opportunity to make extra margin. Particularly considering that since many of the disel passenger cars are European imports, notably VW & Peugeot,they take the attitude that their drivers can afford the extra hit. The diesel prices in NZ bear this out, with diesel always cheaper than low-octane unleaded.

    David Gerber of Sydney Posted on 16 October 2013 11:52am
  • Why is it that these companies and industry associations (oil, electricity, water, retail, etc) all think, that we (the australian public) swallow their rhetoric of rising costs and dwindling supplies due to this factor and that factor, when clearly they are all just profiteering. The government is absolutely no help in any of these situations, the layer of beurocracy just fuels the speculative additional costs, and serves little purpose. Unfortunately being an island nation we can not just pop opver the border to fill up like they do in Europe. But we can learn from them, instead of just complaining we can talk with our feet. For example pick the two biggest fuel reailers and boycott them, see how far they will drop their prices and then use that as a benchmark, above which we will continue the boycott.

    Ben of Sydney Posted on 16 October 2013 11:35am
  • I'm 79 year old male and I can remember back in the late forties and early fifties when kerosene and diesel were one hell of a lot cheaper that petrol. So who's being ripped off?

    Jim Lee of Alstonville Posted on 16 October 2013 5:32am
  • So warren and rob are so obsessed with their diesels they overlook the known health issues with diesel fumes. They also are factually incorrect; diesels do not produce "great power" they produce high torque but less power than diesels and there is no benefit to the environment with Diesel engines. Diesels are fine for trucks because of the characteristics of the torque and the fact that diesels are really suited to heavy lugging type work. The facts are diesels are more expensive to buy and service, worse for the environment and only marginally better on economy than petrol engines. No doubt the diesel lovers will howl with rage but they are the facts

    Greg of Glenelg Posted on 15 October 2013 8:23pm
  • As a Golf diesel owner I completely disagree. My Golf gives quite a bit better returns around town than my son-in-laws Polo, my best mates new Corolla, and my previous Subaru. As I use the vehicle for work I keep a record of usage and it is a vast improvement of the Subaru. I always get better than 6 litres/100km and over 700km out of a tank. If you drive a diesel hard, which some do because of the great power they produce, then of course fuel economy diminishes. Overall I love it and have no complaints except for being ripped of by the fuel companies.

    Warren of Adelaide Posted on 15 October 2013 3:34pm
  • LPG is NOT as clean as some my think, its fumes still carry as many carcinogens as both petrol and diesel so don't be fooled and all the guff about which is better and which is not, we're all different with different needs, the cheapest fuel produced is LPG followed by diesel and we are paying massive premiums for both because we accept it

    not so great of Adelaide Posted on 15 October 2013 1:39pm
  • I notice that conveniently it has not been acknowleged here that Diesel requires less refinery (work) before it can be used as fuel ...So much less that some light crudes can be run without Refinery It does'nt matter on what argument you prefer to base criticism diesel would come up trumps every time .... Even in your story you say that diesel is dearer than unleaded because of less demand.... How is it then that NZ has cheaper Diesel than Australia... Meanwhile those of us who use Diesel vehicles because of the benefits to the environment can just put our hands deeper in our pockets because the Fuel companies and governments manipulate the spin on the true benefits and costs of Diesel. Accepting their Lies is what is driving this country towards everlasting poverty.. Wake up Australia

    Rob Zerk of Queensland Posted on 15 October 2013 11:27am
  • Australia needs to embrace LPG!

    Daniel of Brisbane Posted on 15 October 2013 9:52am
  • The Editor of this story needs to do a bit more homework,one of the largest users of diesel fuel on the west coast ( Rio Tinto)purchases all of its diesel from Singapore.The so called shortage of diesel fuel is a bit hard to understand because petrol comes after diesel so why is petrol so expensive shouldn't it be in oversupply.

    Shane of West Brisbane. Posted on 15 October 2013 9:16am
  • When I bought my Prado I had the choice of petrol or diesel. The diesel model has better fuel economy but had a service interval of 5000km compared to 10000km. It also has more expensive services. There was no way the better fuel economy would offset the extra servicing costs so I chose the petrol. And as for the people above who complain about a 2T SUV in the shopping centre, you can't put 4 kids and 2 adults in a little 4 cylinder hatchback. My choices are either a big 4wd or a people mover. Both are about the same size, but the 4WD lets me go places a Kia Carnival wouldn't. And because of the way rego costs work, it is not economically feasible to own a little car for the times there are less than 6 people in the car.

    RangeResident of Toowoomba Posted on 15 October 2013 8:24am
  • The most pertinent point in this story is the reference to driving habits - not where but how. Diesel vehicles are very forgiving fuel wise (in my experience) if like the magority of drivers you accelerate reasonably hard occassionaly. Unlike petrol powered motors which will increase your average consumption dramatically as soon as you put your foot down or go up a hill or get stuck in traffic. The consumption figures quoted by the car makers are rarely achiveable in real life and don't reflect the actual fuel usage by most motorists. I had been a devotee of petrol power until I recently purchased a mid to large sized diesel station wagon. Even though this VW Passat weighs over 1600kg and only has a 2 litre engine it can achieve an economic 5 litres (or less) per 100klms in traffic. On average it can easily get (fully laden) 15 klms per litre around the city even with my driving. There are sound economic reasons why major car manufacturers and the world trucking industry has and continues to invest in diesel technology and it has nothing to do with occassional fluctuations in heating oil pricing but everything to do with diesel's cost effectiveness compared to every alternative.

    Expet of Perth Western Australia Posted on 15 October 2013 12:38am
  • In relation to the taxi industry, they are rapidly dumping their LPG cars for the Camry Hybrids. That way they get the fuel savings and their boot space back. Toyota unofficially are giving lifetime warranties on these batteries by replacing them on older models with new ones free of charge.

    DDM of Adelaide SA Posted on 14 October 2013 10:25pm
  • Not efficient? My turbo-diesel Hyundai Accent averages 4.5l/100km. My understanding is that diesel costs less to produce than petrol and should be cheaper. Many years ago, diesel was 10c/litre cheaper than petrol, now it is always dearer, with no cyclic discounting. I would assume that this is because most diesel vehicles are commercial vehicles and the running cost is a tax deduction.

    Roscoe Posted on 14 October 2013 8:44pm
  • @ Carl Thompson of Gold Coast Posted on 11 October 2013 2:03pm and others who like Diesel Fuel ( the country economy can't do without "Trains Trucks and Mining equipment"! Carl, you are spot on. Also, Diesel fuel s way saver to store and last but not least, the engines last way longer. BTW: battery powered cars produce way more pollution ("Powerhouse production of energy") and the batteriess are very dangerous for fire etc. And last but not least, the greenies should note what to do with all the spend batteries after 5 years lol.

    Chico of Iraq Posted on 14 October 2013 12:15pm
  • If people really wanted to save money on their motoring they'd do as the professionals do and run LPG. Why do you think all the taxis run on it?

    PeterinBrisbane of Australia Posted on 14 October 2013 12:12pm
  • We just traded our 2010 turbo diesel as the warranty had expired and the dirty diesel dumped in Australia (not so in Europe) meant that we had a recurring particulate filter error that was only able to be fixed with a forced burn. The relief of not having that cost over our head. In Darwin the cost of diesel is not much cheaper than unleaded. Definitely got better economy on the open road out of diesel but the thousands charged for a forced burn mean it's a false economy.

    DarwinChick Posted on 14 October 2013 11:24am
  • In this debate on diesel vs petrol people are ignoring the extra purchase price. A comparison of a Mazda 6 petrol vs diesel fuel consumption, taking into account the extra purchase cost, shows that it would take you 4 years just to break even. And that doesn't take into account the extra service costs for a diesel. Diesels may be great for towing but you need to do a lot of kilonetres per year for them to make economic sense.

    Rodd Posted on 14 October 2013 10:46am
  • How much longer do we have to put up with the filthy, smelly, and dangerous fumes these diesel vehicles constantly belch out? I am not just talking about the older vehicles that are often not properly maintained. All new diesel vehicles (cars, SUV's and commercial vehicles) belch out dangerous smelly fumes that intrude into vehicles following behind, and into the air and environment. Some buyers ignorantly believe they are saving the planet driving a diesel powered car, while others are misled into actually believing these expensive polluters are cheaper to run. It's about time an Australian government did something about this, and either legislate for manufacturers to properly clean up the exhaust emissions from all diesel vehicles, or banish them from our roads altogether!

    Robert of Aldgate Posted on 14 October 2013 1:59am
  • I always have a laugh at the 'I need to tow a boat/horse/jetski etc' line to justify driving a 2 tonne vehicle around town. What proportion of their life is spent doing this? Why are huge 4WDs clogging up supermarket carparks and not carving up the Strez Track? They use fuel at about the same rate picking up the groceries around town as doing the mythical off road stuff.

    Alan Posted on 13 October 2013 11:12pm
  • Yet again Mr Editor, a they're instead of a their. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Thanks -Ed.

    Rb Posted on 13 October 2013 9:24pm
  • my VW Jetta 2.0 Diesel used 3.7l / 100km on interstate trips and 4.8 to 5.4 around town. even hybrid camry taxis aren't getting close to this. I suggest you own the cars to get the figures or stay quiet. your "expert" information is misleading nonsense & lies.

    Matt Bridger of Ipswich Posted on 13 October 2013 3:28pm
  • Back in the seventies we had 3 basic liquid fuels plus LPG. Standard and super petrol (both leaded) and diesel. Depending on wax content you might have got a summer or winter blend, but diesel was always cheaper than petrol, always! This was primarily a reflection of the cost of refining it, as the heavier fuels come off the cracking tower much lower down and in greater volumes than the more highly refined volatile hydrocarbons. In other words you get more diesel from your barrel of crude at an arguably cheaper per litre production cost. Why is the stuff more expensive now? Simple. The market can handle it. Granted the refining effort is probably greater with ultra low sulfur and wax requirements, but primarily the consumer is being gouged.

    Richard Friday of Brisbane Posted on 13 October 2013 12:47pm
  • My vehicle carries 180 litres of diesel with a required safe range of 1200 km whilst exploring the outback. No way would I want to be sitting on 180 litres of petrol in 40+ degrees. Petrol engines fuel use also becomes horrific when towing. For many of us diesel is the only option.

    Christian Litsch of Australia Posted on 13 October 2013 8:44am
  • I have a Peugeot 4 cyl 1.6lt Turbo Diesel Van and the economy is fantastic. On the several occasions I do long distance, my 60lt tank gets me from Brisbane to Sydney cruising easily at 110 where allowable. Town driving ...my wife sometimes asks me why I don't have a Fuel receipt during some months...It's because I can make a tank last 4-6 weeks. Glad I got rid on my petrol Subaru.

    Scott Posted on 13 October 2013 8:24am
  • This is an article by the book. Real life conditions and comparisons is what counts. In the real world, the equivalent petrol model will always consume more. Also we avg 4.8l/100 in a E250cdi close to two tonne diesel.

    Fred of Sydney Posted on 13 October 2013 5:33am
  • Here's a myth: you can some up a huge complex issue with one big generalisation in an article headline that was written to generate site clicks. Phhhhtt! In some contexts petrol, or LPG, or diesel fuels are the most economical. In a comparison, you MUST factor in the vehicle type, driving needs, local pricing, and all the other variables. To dumb down the topic to only 1 result using 1 example is a sign of rubbish journalism. For posters to argue it can only be 1 way (different or otherwise) only shows them to be just as stupid as the premise of the article.

    Michael Baxter of Brisbane Posted on 12 October 2013 3:16pm
  • Factor in the TSI's requirement for premium unleaded petrol. The test no doubt involved 98RON, which last time I bought it, was about 20c/litre above 91 standard unleaded. Now do the maths...

    Rascamonk of Brisbane Posted on 12 October 2013 11:59am
  • The diesel fuel in australia is absolute crap and the lowest octane and grade, all your figures are just wrong or wishfull thinking, and as for vw,s why would you buy one of the most unreliable ever shipped to australia, it just shows how smart you really are

    joel.n of gosford Posted on 12 October 2013 11:17am
  • I keep a tally of fuel consumption for my vehicles for tax purposes. In 95,000 km in my 3 litre diesel Vito I have used about 9300 litres, in my previous 4 litre petrol Pathfinder I had used over 4000 litres more at 91,000km. Different vehicles to be sure but still basically 2 tonne boxes on wheels. The Pathfinder overall was thirstier than my 285kW VY Senator. For my money diesel is definitely more economical.

    Bonester of Eatons Hill Posted on 12 October 2013 10:39am
  • I drive an Audi A6 3.0 TDI, I have a lead foot as it is a car that encourages spirited driving. I get well over 800 ks with a mix of highway and city driving. Duno what that is exactly in KPL but I'm pretty happy with it. Had a Honda Accord 3.0 V6 and the Audi is miles better in fuel consumption and in EPK (Enjoyment Per Kilometer)

    Nicholas of Cairns of Cairns Posted on 11 October 2013 8:48pm
  • What utter twaddle. I drive a 2.0 litre diesel Peugeot that during a mixture of city and highway driving averages 5.2 litres per 100 kilometres. The petrol version of the same car claims to average about 10 litres per 100 kilometres. The simple math is that I spend about half what a petrol owner does to cover the same distance. Even when diesel costs a bit more, I am still way in front of a petrol car owner. I would never in a fit go back to petrol. As for the poster who calls himself 'BanDiesel' he has no idea of what he talking about. Diesel comes out of a lower level of the same cracking tower that produces petrol. Any carcinogens present in diesel would also be in petrol. If you want to find a carcinogen about which to become excited, look up toluene, which is used in all unleaded petrol and about which government has been covering up the awful truth. FYI, biodiesel produced from vegetable oil or algae contains close to zero harmful emissions and is renewable. It is clearly the way to go.

    Carl Thompson of Gold Coast Posted on 11 October 2013 2:03pm
  • You can't tow a boat, caravan or horse float with a hatch back. For the most part, diesel powered 4wd's are used sparingly compared to small vehicles, so the cost is less of a problem. The day Aussies give up recreation is the day house-bound 'greenies' take over this beautiful land of ours. By the way, I don't recommend you suck on a petrol vehicle tail-pipe either. Those fumes are also carcinogenic. Peace out.

    Dean Wright of Canberra Posted on 11 October 2013 12:15pm
  • Benzine in standard petrol and unleaded petrol is also carcinogenic. A nasty form of carcinogen.

    Issy Lyon Posted on 11 October 2013 9:48am
  • This are article is full of grammatical errors and spelling mistake. While I am sure the research and findings are correct I had to reread parts to get the intent of the meaning of some sentences. Sloppy!

    Issy Lyon Posted on 11 October 2013 9:06am
  • if I didn't care I would have bought a petrol Michael and used twice the fuel in the process. What a stupid comment. I do highway miles and get the economy of a four cylinder with the overtaking ability of a large six.

    Neal of Cairns Posted on 10 October 2013 9:31pm
  • The theoretical consumption numbers are great. But here's the thing, if I drive "less than ideal" in a diesel, the consumption stays about the same. If I drive "less than ideal" in a petrol the consumption doubles at least.

    Tomas Guerin of Toowoomba Posted on 10 October 2013 6:04pm
  • Diesel particulates are bad for the Average Human Unit, and what works in the EU does not work here, price-wise. On top of that, purchase price and servicing costs of diesel engines is usually much higher than petrol. Do the maths...

    HW of Brisbane Posted on 10 October 2013 6:02pm
  • Diesel should be cheaper to produce since you need to refine it further to be able to get 91 Oct and further to 95 petrol and so and so on. In the cracking refinery diesel is, oil with sticks in it and if you take those sticks out you have petrol.

    Vin Diesel of Brisbane Posted on 10 October 2013 3:52pm
  • diesel was always half the cost of petrol because it hardly need any refineing just filter and add caustic and gliserine

    elaine catlin of qld Posted on 10 October 2013 1:12pm
  • 2006 Volkswagen Jetta 103TDI, ave of 4.7l between Shepparton and Kerang. Not bad for 2006 tech!!

    Tim of Kerang Posted on 10 October 2013 12:47pm
  • 2007 Ford Focus 2.0L TDCi 6spd manual, 4.5L per 100km open road, 5.9L per 100km city only. I average the low 5's overall (Ford claimed 5.6L per 100km when I bought it new). Plus the thing rockets up hills in 6th gear, and I might still chip it oneday (100kW 340Nm up to 120kW 384Nm). I doubt I will ever go back to a petrol.

    Al of Brisbane Posted on 10 October 2013 12:34pm
  • diesels are cheaper to run on the open road and for towing ,diesels are cleaner than petrol engines in some cases i prefer petrol i find its better around town

    david of brisbane Posted on 10 October 2013 10:42am
  • LPG is cleaner and cheaper overall than both ULP and Diesel. Produced in Australia also, and in newer cars no noticable difference in power. A win-win.

    Andrew of adelaide Posted on 10 October 2013 10:40am
  • I Said 6 cylinder performance not 6 cylinder TURBO performance, a standard 6 cylinder commodore or falcon does the 0 to 100 sprint in the 8 second bracket

    FRANK of WHEELERS HILL Posted on 10 October 2013 9:32am
  • I don't care about YOUR economy,I care about MY lungs as I do delivery work and am forced to breathe YOUR yuck.I can close the windows and use A/C with pollen filter,which isn't really filtering the stuff and I have worse economy thanks to you because of having to use the A/C.All new busses in Bris run gas,that's the way to go.

    Andrew Willis of Brisbane Posted on 10 October 2013 8:55am
  • Climate change My Dear, it is all about climate change. Cars and trucks do not affect climate change, neither do aeroplanes, or home heating appliances, Why? because of catalytic convertors, it is all about volcanoes, bush fires, and cows passing wind.

    Magnetic Drift of The overfed mushroom patch. Posted on 10 October 2013 7:36am
  • In Europe recently over 7 weeks, a 1.6ltr TD Ford Focus averaged 5.5 ltr/100km (51mpg) overall with lots of city driving, and got 4 ltr/100 (70mpg) on the motorways at 70mph (113 kph). My next car will be a diesel. It drove much better than a Prius as well.

    Daryl Saal of Toowoomba Posted on 09 October 2013 10:28pm
  • nice for them to use the golf tsi as a comparison vehicle it uses 98octane fuel so actually costs more to run per kilometer and when your doing 60,000 plus kilometers per year that extra cost does hurt..

    Scott White of Cairns Posted on 09 October 2013 10:24pm
  • stupid comparison. these 'economical' petrol cars use premium unleaded at $1.85/L, whereas diesels are at $1.50/L, straight saving immediately. I get 6.6l/100klm doing 77klms/day to work, the petrol cars in same circumstances will get around 8l/100klms, have a friend who had one and this is what he got-real world folks, not theory. the services are 20,000klms and are same cost as petrol cars-savings again. my diesel has a FAP particulate filter so in closed-in space you cannot smell anything, try that with a petrol car and you will be gassed out in minutes. also at 135,000klms the diesel engine is just run in-at around 105,000 klms I reckon, going strong and will do so long after the petrol engine has worn out. anti-diesel bias from ignorant people not actually owning a diesel and not realising how silly they are. give me a diesel anyday, I will pay more at the beginning sure but save far more $$ initial difference along the way with better resale value later on. duh!

    Earthflute of Sydney Posted on 09 October 2013 9:43pm
  • try 44.5 mpg @130kph average speed from a holden 5lt v8 manual aircond all the way,std ulp! oh it got 7.2 litre/100 on another trip, terrible aint it 8-?

    James a/////// of act Posted on 09 October 2013 9:18pm
  • Diesel fumes are carcinogenic and are in the same category as asbestos, arsenic and mustard gas. They should be banned period, especially in the cities: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-13/diesel-fumes-carcinogenic/4068414

    BanDiesel Posted on 09 October 2013 4:21pm
  • If you're driving a 2 tonne SUV then it's pretty obvious you don't give a stuff about fuel economy anyway.

    Michael Knight Posted on 09 October 2013 3:01pm
  • 7.0 l/100 avge travelling between Penrith and Belmore 5 days per week in peak hour both ways from Mondeo T/Deisel. Beat that in a mid size family vehicle.

    Mark Pearce of Belmore Posted on 09 October 2013 11:08am
  • Even though diesel is cheaper at the pumps we have discovered that it's not worth it anymore. Here in NZ diesel registration is twice that of petrol add to that diesel kms $50 per 1000 Kms. For us that's a wk. our diesel ute is definitely more expensive than our petrol ute

    D T of NZ Posted on 09 October 2013 11:06am
  • 2008 TD Passat with 6 cyclinder performance? 0-100 in 8.1 seconds. 2004 xr6 turbo 0-100 in 6.2 seconds that's a great comparison you have made. IT would also get at least get 500 km in city.

    John Coleman of Sydney Posted on 09 October 2013 10:15am
  • We went from a 2008 Holden Viva 1.8l auto wagon (1300kg) to a 2012 Skoda Superb 2.0l Ambience TDi wagon (1600kg). In town, the Holden would get about 10 l/100klm....the Skoda gets 5.7 l/100. No contest.

    Chris of Canberra Posted on 09 October 2013 7:31am
  • Kia Sportage 2011, 2.4l Petrol. I get 9.3L/100 driving around the city, I take it easy anticipate lights etc. I get 8.7L/100 driving down the coast. I pay average 20c a litre less than diesel. How is that a bad thing. If the two fuels were the same price I could see an augument but its just not true you save more with diesel.

    Sportage2001 of sydney Posted on 09 October 2013 7:18am
  • 6.0ltrs consistently per 100 k's on the highway from my santafe (5.9 over 400k's of flat ground on one trip) .8.5 around town on a not so light pedal (10.5 absolute worst parked a lot of the time). Nearly two tonne of SUV. Show me a petrol that produces 145 kw's and 448 nm's of torque from 2.2 ltrs whilst propelling said SUV effortlessly up hills in the mix. NO MYTH !!

    Neal of Cairns Posted on 08 October 2013 2:42pm
  • i traded my 2004 xr6 turbo falcon for a 2008 passat turbo diesel, 73 litres of unleaded would get me 300 to 360 km around the eastern suburbs in the falcon, In the Passat 68 litres of Diesel would get me 650 to 720 km also in the suburbs, 6 cylinder performance from a 2lt turbo diesel ITS NOT A MYTH !

    FRANK CUTULI of wheelers hill Posted on 07 October 2013 7:57pm
  • Whatever. I'd like to see you get better than 9.3L/100 from 100% city driving with a petrol engine in a 2 tonne AWD SUV.

    Troll Posted on 07 October 2013 11:37am
Read all 133 comments

Add your comment on this story

Indicates required

We welcome your comments on this story. Comments are submitted for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited. Please provide your full name. We also require a working email address - not for publication, but for verification. The location field is optional.

Share your feedback