1.9 vs 2.2 TiD - Real world economy differences?

[CitTone]

OK - let's assume that eventually I decide that my '03 motor should be replaced by something a little fresher.

What is anyone's direct experience of fuel economy comparison between the box-of-spanners Isuzu motor and the 1.9 spaghetti-nosher?

I am currently getting an SID average of 36mpg, give or take, and that's with the P-Box fitted, very little of my mileage being long cruising!

[wrighar]

We have a TTid 1.9 93ss, and average between 43mpg (10 mile commutes to work with school and nursery drops off, so 3 stops starts) and 55 mpg (long run of 200 miles +).

Fuel economy I'm happy with (coming from a sucsessiojn of 5 or 6  2.3 Turbo's).

Only comments would be:
It has no pull at tick over and will not lug down like a petrol will, i.e can't pull out of a junction in 2nd when just moving / rolling.
I still get caught out being in a too higher gear when braking for a junction and high the idle governor so the car want to accellerate while I'm still braking.

[Steve440]

Word of warning!!!

Fuel economy is important but unless you are doing quite a lot mileage and plan to keep the car for a long time depreciation and what you pay for the car are more important especially now diesel is more expensive than petrol. Also Diesel cars usually cost more to service and maintain especially with these modern injectors.

It is probably quite an easy thing to work out once you know how much you are going to pay for a newer car but it is well worth working out.

I did this calculation a few years ago, I do about 12,000 miles a year and it was not worth paying the extra for a diesel and anyway Aero's are more fun and you only here once.

Steve

[Audax]

I don't think you'll see a real world improvement, I think it will be about the same, I'd say no more than 3 or 4% more efficient. The repair and maintenance costs of a 1.9 will be higher than a 2.2 (unless the VP44 diesel pump breaks on your 2.2) I think you may save a little on road tax?

[Finbo]

The SID on my 2.2 estate is currently showing 51.4 mpg. I'm aware this may not be totally accurate. My mileage is mainly motorway and A roads mixed with some town driving as well. It dips to 47-48 mpg in the colder winter months.
I use the climate control as and when I need it rather than on Auto all the time. When on for long periods the mpg drops approx 6-8%.
The best I've got out of a tank is 765 before refuelling. The light was on a bit too long for comfort! I think if I stayed on motorways/A roads only I could achieve 800 plus.
You mention your driving is mainly around town. Even so, I would hope to see 35-40 mpg on average.
From what I've read, there isn't too much difference between the 2.2 and 1.9 engines when it comes to fuel economy.

[Norfolk Jim]

Finbo - its nice to see someone else getting my kind of economy and actually looking better for some.........at least you prove its possible - sorry Andrew.

I have also heard from a work colleague who has the TTid (he's not interested in this forum - shame) as company car. He says the same as you Andrew - scary if in wrong gear at junctions but he agrees the fuel economy is excellent for what the car can do. When I come to change (not for a while yet) I'll be looking at a TTid estate.

I can see where you are coming from Steve but I look at it in a different way........................when I look for a car it has to be just right and I set myself some figures to work within. Lets say I have £3k available plus my car. The £3k may come from various things but never finance or cards etc. It is always real money - cash. So when I've got the car it's mine. So that's the car. Depreciation never really enters my mind as all cars depreciate no matter what anyone says - only made reasonable money on my original mini cooper.

I've found this diesel (2.2Tid 9-5) is as cheap to maintain as my aero was as I changed oil etc every 6k anyway.

What I really look at is how much it is going to cost me in fuel each month as once you've bought the car that's the main expense. One month I may get 3 jobs and the next I may get none but next may get 4.......so I never really know how much it will cost me in fuel - I don't have a daily commute as my office is at home.

As far as I'm concerned if a tank of diesel lasts me a month I know petrol in the aero lasted a couple of weeks unless I was doing long distance journey's all the while - i would have kept the aero then.

So my philosophy is the cost of vehicle is immaterial its how much it will cost in fuel each month that matters as that's what you fork out for so if diesel does average 45 where as on same trips aero did 27 I'm paying out less to fill it. I know using the diesel on hols saved me around £125 in fuel up around Scotland.

Now if buying new then that's different as I never ever ever buy new. Pointless unless you do massive miles in my view. May as well throw £50's out the window as you drive.

[phoenix]

Same on the standard 1.9TiD. Very scary at junctions- absolutely no grunt below around 1500, so you need rather more revs than you expect form a diesel to get going.

[welshwizard]

OK - let's assume that eventually I decide that my '03 motor should be replaced by something a little fresher.

What is anyone's direct experience of fuel economy comparison between the box-of-spanners Isuzu motor and the 1.9 spaghetti-nosher?

I am currently getting an SID average of 36mpg, give or take, and that's with the P-Box fitted, very little of my mileage being long cruising!

:Geek mode on:
The 2.2 was an Opel unit, it was the 3.0 that was the Saab-Isuzu motor:
:Geek mode off:

I'm getting an average of 32 mpg from a 2.3 HOT Auto.... so 36 from an oil burner is disappointing - my Dad had a 2003 2.2 which was replaced by a 2006 1.9 - I don't think he mentioned the economy - so I guess there isn't that much difference.  You will be going from 120 PS to 150PS, still pulling a heavy car.

[sgould]

If you already have a 2003 car and want something a bit newer, then the 2.2diesel in the Saab range was phased out in 2004/5.  So you really are only considering the 1.9 unless you only go a tiny bit newer.

I'm still not convinced by a diesel car.  Even when I was working and doing 20,000 miles a year, it was never really a good choice.  I was either in heavy traffic or on a motorway.  I have had loan cars that were diesel and the low down pull from standstill made traffic jams a pain.  And keeping up eith the flow on a motorway didn't do much for fuel economy.  When you add in the extra cost of parts and service, it was little different from the petrol cars in running cost.

We used to run a diesel many years ago.  Back then you had to paddle in diesel at the lorry pumps!  But that's no longer the case.  You paddle in diesel at all the pumps in the modern age.

But the other thing that makes diesel a no-no is the smell.  It was always lingering on your hands after a fill-up.  Our old diesel was passed on from my father- in-law. It was mainly my wife's car so she has experienced the problem of owning a diesel, so even if the costs were favourable, SWMBO would say "No".

But now we are retired and pottering, I doubt that a diesel will appear on the radar again.

[Norfolk Jim]

I see where you are coming from Will.

Both SWMBO have diesels and with her being a nurse in the community I have never heard her say anything about smelly hands etc which has really surprised me.

My 55 plate 2.2 is pretty quick off the mark with the Hirsch upgrade but must admit her Volvo is very quick off the mark.

I have seen a large reduction in her fuel costs coming from a petrol Volvo V40 as she's averaging around 46 around town in the 2.0D V50 whereas the 1.8 GDI petrol was about 37 around town.

I can honestly say I am spending less on fuel than I did with the Aero.

To be honest if I wasn't bothered about fuel usage I would have kept the Aero, no question on that at all. If I was doing more longer motorway journeys where the Aero was fully at home I would have kept her but with the mixture I do now the diesel is far more economical.

Even if the 2.2Tid and 1.9Tid's give low figures when around town I'm sure the Aero would have drunk fuel like no bodies business so to me the only if, but or why would be a fair amount of motorway use.

[sgould]

As I said, these days a diesel is not on the plan as we both do very small mileages. So my comments are not really relevant to me any more......

But it needs careful thought before buying a diesel, especially a 1.9.  You can do the basic costs - buying, running and servicing - but with a diesel there is a much higher risk involved in the cost of ownership.  If something goes wrong the costs can be extortionate and you need to allow a proportion of cost to cover that risk.  Modern diesels do not seem to be the strong reliable plodding devices they were.

There are several things at risk on a diesel that are much cheaper (and reliable) on a petrol car, or not required at all

Dual mass flywheel.  Exhaust filter.  High pressure fuel injection pump.  Swirl valves.  Exhaust gas recirculation valves.  Etc.  And most of these are required for a diesel to become acceptable in the modern world. 

The original diesel engine was designed to be a simple industrial engine that could run on many fuels. It was really an industrial engine that was expected to run as a stationary engine at a constant speed for long periods.  Adapting it to run in a car has meant a huge raft of compromises that add risk and complication. 

[Geoff1951]

CitTone, how about a return to the dark side...

[Norfolk Jim]

Wot driving on the right?

[Geoff1951]

Jim, Jim, Jim. CitTone will know what I mean! 

[Audax]

You know I was only looking at the price of a used C6 last night... when the time comes I'd be very tempted indeed!