Study finds diesels three times more likely to break down than petrol vehicles, cost 20% more to fix - Sensationalist Headlines

The point of those diesels is economy, because they can provide a good amount of grunt for less fuel.

Our 1.9 TDI A4 from 2002 did nearly 600k km(~370k miles) without engine issues, our current 2.0 TDI A4 from 2009 has done over half that also without issues. There's plenty of petrol cars that wouldn't last that long.

I guess most of the issues are stuff like this: [QUOTE]Should a customer be able to return a second-hand car that broke down three times on the way home after it was bought? Yes, says customer Rabina Khan who says that’s exactly what happened and wants her money back. No, says the boss of the dealership it was bought from. Rabina says the Vauxhalll Meriva is not suitable for the short trips she makes. And Mel Watson, managing director of Taylor North Shields, admits the car might not be right for her but will not return her money unless it is against another vehicle. He says it needs “a good blast” at least once a week with the driver hitting high revs. Rabina, of Heaton, Newcastle, said: “I paid £2000 cash but it stopped three times on the way home with a child in the car." ... Mel admitted the car broke down moments after Rabina drove it out of the dealership and again a few days later. He said: “She broke down and we lent her a replacement and put a new battery and starting motor in her car. “She came back in with a light on the dashboard and it was the diesel particulate filter. “Her car is a good one but it needs to be let go and get the revs up to clean the filter. “This car might not be 100 per-cent suitable because she does short journeys. “They have to have a good blast at least once a week.”[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/blast-what-car-dealership-told-14173836[/url] Most people in the UK are probably doing a lot of short trips I guess.

[QUOTE=Sableye;53087913]how dare you besmirch rudolf diesel. He died to bring this alien technology to mankind! ya there was some weird stuff surrounding his death. [editline]27th January 2018[/editline] ive been on the fence about buying a diesel car myself, though the chevy cruze does come with urea injection so the nox problem is sort of solved as far as i know, otherwise the 1.6l engine they put in there is the same in the diesel Colorado[/QUOTE]What I was saying was that Rudolf Diesel was killed because his peanut oil engine was a threat to crude oil.

The modern emissions systems are really hurting the diesel industry. The systems often fail, causing power loss and a huge economy hit. My grandfather has a 6.7 Powerstroke. It has spent months at the dealer for emission issues. He only gets 6-7mpg when the emissions system fails and sets the truck in 'limp mode'. The other hand, i have a 6.2 Detroit from '84. I average 19-22USMPG with no emissions equipment. Most V8 gas engines from the era have been rebuilt, replaced, etc. but the diesels of the era still go strong.

I just don't understand why you all need engines that big though, what are you towing that the rest of the world isn't?

[QUOTE=FordLord;53088530]The modern emissions systems are really hurting the diesel industry. The systems often fail, causing power loss and a huge economy hit. My grandfather has a 6.7 Powerstroke. It has spent months at the dealer for emission issues. He only gets 6-7mpg when the emissions system fails and sets the truck in 'limp mode'. The other hand, i have a 6.2 Detroit from '84. I average 19-22USMPG with no emissions equipment. Most V8 gas engines from the era have been rebuilt, replaced, etc. but the diesels of the era still go strong.[/QUOTE] It's a shame that so few manufacturers have been able to have reliable emissions systems (that don't try and cheat the system). But it's not really viable to remove these systems, the emissions cause tens of thousands of premature deaths every year in the UK already.

[QUOTE=FordLord;53088530]The modern emissions systems are really hurting the diesel industry. The systems often fail, causing power loss and a huge economy hit. My grandfather has a 6.7 Powerstroke. It has spent months at the dealer for emission issues. He only gets 6-7mpg when the emissions system fails and sets the truck in 'limp mode'. The other hand, i have a 6.2 Detroit from '84. I average 19-22USMPG with no emissions equipment. Most V8 gas engines from the era have been rebuilt, replaced, etc. but the diesels of the era still go strong.[/QUOTE] this was always the rally cry of those that opposed emissions systems in the 70s, "oh it robs so much power." ya but its there for a reason, even if it seems intangable to you, put 100,000s of then on the road and it all adds up. modern emissions targets aren't somehow impossible to meet either its just the car companies don't want to rise to the challenge

This study didn't take into account the mighty power of the late 90s-early 2000s german engines and the monstrosity that was the 1.7 from Isuzu, the equivalent of the guy from Re7: shoot him all you want, he wont die. The 1.9 tdi IS thr most reliable diesel engine you can get. Proper maintenance given and you'll have an engine for 500.000 miles with enough power and great mpg. The bmw counterpart of the time was also good, but it developed less horsepower and was prone to breaking turbos, up until the 150hp version that was prone to ingesting swirl flaps. The isuzu 1.7... I had one, running it with no water and nearly no oil, hammering down the throttle as hard as possible, and it would not go down. When the car went to the crusher, they didn't give me any real money for it, because nobody needed parts for an engine that just didn't break. This study just accounts for the newer diesels that have filters that aren't used as they should. The more complicated it is, the worst it gets.

[QUOTE=Sableye;53088681]this was always the rally cry of those that opposed emissions systems in the 70s, "oh it robs so much power." ya but its there for a reason, even if it seems intangable to you, put 100,000s of then on the road and it all adds up. modern emissions targets aren't somehow impossible to meet either its just the car companies don't want to rise to the challenge[/QUOTE] Vehicles produce much more emissions when these systems fail, vs not having them at all. My 6.2 originally had an EGR valve. The valve stuck open, dumping exhaust into my intake, making the truck spew out a lot of soot. I completely removed the valve and the exhaust is cleaner than ever. They do rob a lot of power when they fail. The 6.7 dropped from 20-21mpg, to 6-7mpg.

[QUOTE=FordLord;53088708]Vehicles produce much more emissions when these systems fail, vs not having them at all. My 6.2 originally had an EGR valve. The valve stuck open, dumping exhaust into my intake, making the truck spew out a lot of soot. I completely removed the valve and the exhaust is cleaner than ever. They do rob a lot of power when they fail. The 6.7 dropped from 20-21mpg, to 6-7mpg.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure you can't see NOx, at least not when it's coming out of the exhaust, which iirc is the primary target of egr valves.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;53088682]This study didn't take into account the mighty power of the late 90s-early 2000s german engines and the monstrosity that was the 1.7 from Isuzu, the equivalent of the guy from Re7: shoot him all you want, he wont die. The 1.9 tdi IS thr most reliable diesel engine you can get. Proper maintenance given and you'll have an engine for 500.000 miles with enough power and great mpg. The bmw counterpart of the time was also good, but it developed less horsepower and was prone to breaking turbos, up until the 150hp version that was prone to ingesting swirl flaps. The isuzu 1.7... I had one, running it with no water and nearly no oil, hammering down the throttle as hard as possible, and it would not go down. When the car went to the crusher, they didn't give me any real money for it, because nobody needed parts for an engine that just didn't break. This study just accounts for the newer diesels that have filters that aren't used as they should. The more complicated it is, the worst it gets.[/QUOTE] As an Izuzu Trooper owner (my family have always had Troopers as well over the years) - they really are bulletproof. My current one hadn't had an oil change in about 7 years (stupid previous owner..) and when the oil came out it was like a gel, but it still ran just as well as it did after getting its oil changed. It's insane how engineered the engine is (apart from the time when they tried playing around with injectors... and the seals would dissolve and start pumping fuel into the oil..). Funny story actually. A farmer we know has Troopers to tow things etc (he has a barn full of spare parts) and one his Troopers was T-boned by a tractor, but the car drove away fine (well, apart from the driver side doors being caved in). He just replaced the doors and the car was back on the road (no damage to the chassis). It's just a shame they stopped making them (they're just pickups at this point) because they're genuinely really good cars. [editline]28th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=PyroCF;53088658]I just don't understand why you all need engines that big though, what are you towing that the rest of the world isn't?[/QUOTE] I think it's to offset the weight of the car. I mean take a Ford F150 Raptor for example. That is the size of a minibus in the UK, and probably weighs the same (if not more) so the higher literage is needed to counter the increase in weight otherwise the vehicle just becomes sluggish (and won't sell well). Could also just be "bigger in America" since that's the general trend regarding engine sizes.

[QUOTE=FordLord;53088708]Vehicles produce much more emissions when these systems fail, vs not having them at all. My 6.2 originally had an EGR valve. The valve stuck open, dumping exhaust into my intake, making the truck spew out a lot of soot. I completely removed the valve and the exhaust is cleaner than ever. They do rob a lot of power when they fail. The 6.7 dropped from 20-21mpg, to 6-7mpg.[/QUOTE] Your vehicle is now probably spitting out an illegal amount of NOx.

People drive too short distances for the diesel engines to work and clean properly, that's the main issue from what I've seen first hand, Not letting it warm up propperly, not cooling propperly, lacking service and overall neglect. Kinda wierd that old toyotas and merc diesels are though as nails but newer cant even handle a sulphur lvl over 10%...

[QUOTE=PyroCF;53088658]I just don't understand why you all need engines that big though, what are you towing that the rest of the world isn't?[/QUOTE] What are you guys not towing is the question. For realsies though a lot of pickup owners were traditionally farmers, contractors, and other Blue collar laborers who towed horse cages, equipment, large trailers, and some owners towed their very large boats. Somewhere along the line Americans got this idea that bigger was better(even if it’s not really the case) despite the Duramax I4 Colorado being able to tow up to over 7,000lbs where as most big petrol trucks average around 9-10,000.

I wouldn't be against buying a large pickup for the utility. At my last job I would just borrow the company truck, an F-250, for hauling furniture and large car parts. Now that's out of my ability unless I rent a pickup. Love having my 900 Turbo but it's not the most practical.

[QUOTE=Xanadu;53090133]I wouldn't be against buying a large pickup for the utility. At my last job I would just borrow the company truck, an F-250, for hauling furniture and large car parts. Now that's out of my ability unless I rent a pickup. Love having my 900 Turbo but it's not the most practical.[/QUOTE] You can rent a uhaul f150 for $20 a day. A lot better than shelling out $60,000 for a 2017 full size pickup.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53090323]You can rent a uhaul f150 for $20 a day. A lot better than shelling out $60,000 for a 2017 full size pickup.[/QUOTE] You don't know me, I buy stuff for under a grand and fix it at home. Don't even need to jack up a truck to fit underneath it for fixes.

[QUOTE=FordLord;53088708]Vehicles produce much more emissions when these systems fail, vs not having them at all. My 6.2 originally had an EGR valve. The valve stuck open, dumping exhaust into my intake, making the truck spew out a lot of soot. I completely removed the valve and the exhaust is cleaner than ever. They do rob a lot of power when they fail. The 6.7 dropped from 20-21mpg, to 6-7mpg.[/QUOTE] Cleaner by what standard? Are you seriously implying that because when these systems (designed to keep our environment clean) fail they go back to emitting the same amount of pollution that we shouldn't have them at all? I can practically guarantee you that back when your emissions were soot-ey, they were probably better for the environment.

EGR valves do increase PM emissions, but significantly reduced NOx emissions. The idea is that then the DPF will capture the added PM. If you're going to drive a diesel and your car comes with emission control devices you should keep them working, failing to do so is like smoking inside. You're shitting up everyone else's air just because you can't be bothered.

You guys think his 6.2 is a big scary pollution machine? My half million mile truck has a non turbocharged 7.3 liter idi diesel in it, and gets 10mpg while hauling around my truck camper in its bed, which makes the whole vehicle weigh about 8000lbs. Compared to the gas engine alternative of 1987, the ford 460, it gets about twice the fuel economy, and due to the lack of electronics and weakly built high tolerance parts, is way more reliable than the average bargain basement tiny modern economy diesel in europe. [editline]29th January 2018[/editline] It didnt come with any egr crap, but i do disable the egr on any car that i own. Its a breakage prone relic that does nothing but soot up the top end. I even get better mileage after removing them.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;53091351]You guys think his 6.2 is a big scary pollution machine? My half million mile truck has a non turbocharged 7.3 liter idi diesel in it, and gets 10mpg while hauling around my truck camper in its bed, which makes the whole vehicle weigh about 8000lbs. Compared to the gas engine alternative of 1987, the ford 460, it gets about twice the fuel economy, and due to the lack of electronics and weakly built high tolerance parts, is way more reliable than the average bargain basement tiny modern economy diesel in europe. [editline]29th January 2018[/editline] It didnt come with any egr crap, but i do disable the egr on any car that i own. Its a breakage prone relic that does nothing but soot up the top end. I even get better mileage after removing them.[/QUOTE] EGR does do something: Reduce NOx emissions.

This article is basically pointless dribble that tells us what we already knew: If you make something more complicated, it's got more failure points to break, and will break more often. Diesel as a technology is more reliable than gas engines. What's failing is the complex systems that we are forced to use on them that the engine can run more reliably without. it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[QUOTE=Morgen;53091527]EGR does do something: Reduce NOx emissions.[/QUOTE] not significantly. diesel pollution is mostly just particulates anyway so that's not even a big deal

My opinion on diesels is that the Euro 6 standard is proof that diesel fuelled vehicles are too impractical to run unless absolutely necessary. You now have the EGR, which reduces NOx, the DPF to catch the resultant soot (which comes with its own fairly simple maintenance requirements that dealers by their nature don't tell you any of until it breaks for a cost of over £1k) and SCR which requires a regular refill of fermented piss and adds dead weight to the tune of over 20kg. And if you're a low mileage, low speed driver or make lots of short journeys the whole lot is fucked. There are just too many limitations on its use. I hate that we have to use DPF equipped Fiat vans in Cardiff city, because we're practically keeping their replacement DPF assembly line running. Electric motors pretty much address all issues apart from range and energy capacity. For a pickup, works van like mine or a 3.5t panel van, anybody covering a local area can have an electric van with 200 or so mile range by let's say 2025. For cars, it's an absolute no brainer unless you drive motorways in which case you need a PHEV. It's time for car and van makers to really get behind this change and put the diesel out of its misery and turn off its many life support machines. High mileage freighters though, I really have no idea how to fix that. Perhaps that will come with time and improved batteries and chargers.

Honestly the best comprimise for semi trucks is probably the same way a diesel train engine operates. Big ass diesel engine running at the peak of its efficiency, turning a generator, then supplying the traction motors with however much power you want. Voila, efficient, [I]and[/I] long range.

[QUOTE=Jon27;53094225]And if you're a low mileage, low speed driver or make lots of short journeys the whole lot is fucked.[/QUOTE] It doesn't even make financial sense to use diesel in that case (at least in the Netherlands) because while the fuel itself is cheaper and more efficient, the road taxes are significantly higher

Should start seeing an even bigger price drop in hybrid technology this year. If done right (i.e use a decent electric motor with plenty of torque for towing) they'll replace larger diesel vehicles soon enough.

[QUOTE=butre;53094200]not significantly. diesel pollution is mostly just particulates anyway so that's not even a big deal[/QUOTE] [t]https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/images/engine/egr/tradeoff2.png[/t] [url]https://www.dieselnet.com/tech/engine_egr_emissions.php[/url] Look like it works pretty well. 49% of NOx is from road transportation in the UK.

[QUOTE=PyroCF;53094558]Should start seeing an even bigger price drop in hybrid technology this year. If done right (i.e use a decent electric motor with plenty of torque for towing) they'll replace larger diesel vehicles soon enough.[/QUOTE] Honesty why didn’t automakers start doing this years ago for trucks? Use a electric motor for lower end speeds when accelerating and then switch to an ICE at higher speeds for better fuel economy and efficiency. Especially in midsize trucks because of the footprint EPA regulations where it would work best.