Menu
What's new
By:
Advanced search...

Torn between petrol and diesel

a 05 here, might be some haggle room in the price.

http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201311089778706/sort/default/usedcars/fuel-type/petrol/body-type/saloon/page/4/make/honda/onesearchad/used%2Cnearlynew%2Cnew/radius/1500/maximum-age/up_to_9_years_old/postcode/le52gg/transmission/manual/model/accord?logcode=p
 
that 05 is a good looking one, if it has full service, you might get a few hundred off the asking price.

milage not too bad either.
 
Very nice but looking more at 2 ltr or diesel , ive had my orders lol unfortunatly
 
If I play safe the replacement for my Super Coupe will be an 05-06 Accord Ex Exec with the 2.4 in. I'd trust a well maintained 7th gen Accord as much as anything.

Diesel V Petrol has many arguments both for and against each although I would say that Honda has built its reputation on petrol engined cars. However, I'm sure there's plenty of Honda diesel owners who are happy with their motoring too.

Diesel engines have performance characteristics of their own and having recently driven a friends 170bhp 2L Diesel Passat I have to say the low down torque can be a lot of fun when pulling away at the lights.
 
petrol and diesel accords are totally different ends of the spectrum, unless you do well over 15k miles a year forget a diesel, plus if you got less than 3k to spend also forget a diesel also the milage will be huge, and expect a lot of tlc.

dont get why people are scared of a 2.4 accord over a 2 litre one, the performance gain is significant, much greater driving pleasure and far outweighs the extra few hundred quid tax.

economy is meh, the 2.4 is slightly worse off than the 2 litre but it will hardly leave you bankrupt and homeless.... :blush:
 
toffee_pie said:
dont get why people are scared of a 2.4 accord over a 2 litre one, the performance gain is significant, much greater driving pleasure and far outweighs the extra few hundred quid tax.

economy is meh, the 2.4 is slightly worse off than the 2 litre but it will hardly leave you bankrupt and homeless.... :blush:
Click to expand...

Totally agree. To be honest, the fuel consumption difference between two comparable 2 litre and 3 litre engines wouldn't be too much different in a car of the Accords size.

Fuel consumption is just one factor in motoring costs. I think people in general are too easily influenced by mpg rather than the gross costs of owning their car.
 
just variable distances i need to travel and alot of town driving to get to abseiling jobs etc.plus could be any where in the country working

im sure one will turn up :)
 
have to agree with people becoming obsessed with mpg, its what happened Ireland.

how can you possibly enjoy driving if you constantly are resetting the obc seeing what the economy is

who gives a f***....!

its not a v12, the 2.4 can easily get well over 400 miles on a full tank for long trips, thats good enough for me.
 
As much as i loved my 2.4 i have to admit several diesels later i would now never go back to petrol .. Ive just sold my a5 3.0 tdi and it was quicker than almost anything on the road ( barring supercars obvs ) while still returning 40mpg , the 2.2 diesel is a nice compramise between power and frugality lol go on embrace the diesel !!
 
unless i end up doing 500/600+ miles a week cant ever see myself owning a diesel, whatever about modern diesels being more refined fact is a petrol is smoother, faster and depending on your wallet can have as much torque as you want.
 
I had a diesel for 6 years and I love the torque they have, they're alot easier to drive than petrols. Having said that I will probably never get one again, I just prefer a petrol engine, especially with modern diesels and DPF's.

My last car was a Corolla T Sport which is a high revving engine - redlines at 8,200rpm! It is an awesome car and I love the sound but it doesn't suit my driving style. Having owned the diesel I prefer to have the power lower down and not having to rag it everywhere! This is why I want the 2.4 Accord and I'm not even considering the 2.0 with the minimal difference in mpg. Say as an example the 2.4 does 30mpg and the 2.0 does 35mpg, that is around £300 difference in fuel if you do 15k miles. I do between 3-5k miles a year so mpg isn't that much of an issue. I'm at an age where insurance is pretty good for most cars as well so the only real cost is tax and new parts/tyres.

I also prefer the look of the tourer ;)
 
only parts i had to put into my accord since i got it over a year and a half ago are the boot joints and clutch, which were dud when i bought it.

since then its just petrol... :lol:

as long as you do the servicing they are as reliable as larry
 
toffee_pie said:
unless i end up doing 500/600+ miles a week cant ever see myself owning a diesel, whatever about modern diesels being more refined fact is a petrol is smoother, faster and depending on your wallet can have as much torque as you want.
Click to expand...
Although obviously much less than a diesel!

People have diesels for the far better fuel economy, greater low end torque and lower VED. "Fast' is a debatable matter... the speedo on my diesel tourer will still happily show almost twice the national speed limit*, so quite fast enough really.

*On my private driveway, of course.
 
Without siding one or the other ...... both have advantages ...... But i just feel like a modern diesel can be driven quickly without sacrificing mpg ie money ? Fuel aint cheap nowadays and when you get your toe down in a petrol to keep up inevitably it ends up with an extra visit to the pumps .....?
 
this is boring from now on, here it's not a problem, so, it's best to let real topics up, with real problems..
i think he got the idea... just let it go... :ph34r:
topic closed, please!
 
all that torque comes at the expense of sounding like a john deere, but thats another thing, each to their own and all that.

unless i do crazy milage i am in favour of petrols, smoother and in most cases less maintenance.

we have this done to death here tbh.


can the op let us know what he decides to buy.......
 
It ain't done till there is a piccy of the OP with a car. It 's not as if this forum is like LB or Alert and overwhelemed with new threads and hot topics .It's 5 days old and 4 pages long .. takes about 20 mins on other forums to get 4 pages and it's probably gone waaaay off topic by then .
 
I think this thread's got merit. Normally when the Diesel Vs Petrol debate arises it's in threads meant for a different purpose and the arguments take the thread off topic, which is not fair on the OP of that thread.

In this instance, the OP is literally torn between the two and we've had both friendly banter and some interesting facts, experiences and insight. I'm not sure the OP will be any nearer to making his mind up though :lol: .

I think there have been some very sound points put across for both sides of the argument and I'm curious to know what the OP is thinking at this stage.

Also, I agree with toothless above. If this was Torquecars forum or Mightcarmods forum or any of many other car forums, this thread would be 35 pages long, totally off topic with some rather menacing arguments and it would probably get locked. Someone not able to drop their stick would then open a new thread to continue the argument only to annoy the mods and have that thread locked too :lol: .

Dave (ATA) what are you thinking mate? Any nearer a decision?
 
I have had a diesel Accord and now have a petrol Accord 2.0 (the 220bhp Euro R version). If you are not doing the miles don't get a diesel. They are more complicated, more likely to go wrong, need to be looked after more and more expensive when they go wrong. Couple this with the fact the car wont be that fuel efficient until it has warmed up, so 10 to 15 mins into the journey.

I would get the 2.4 because the Accord is quite a heavy car.

Right now, am enjoying a Euro R, but I also would like a Type S tourer same spec as in the original Honda 'cog' advert.

http://youtu.be/_ve4M4UsJQo
 
I've a 2.2 diesel and I love it. I do about 40K per year and believe me, when I can run it on Red diesel (agricultural fuel and dodge VOSA) it works out quite cheap. 15K and under go for a petrol. With a budget of about 2K, never buy a diesel (unless its a run about / 2nd car) as it could be a Pandora's box once something goes wrong. You are always listening for a rattle, squeak, or grinding. Trust me, ive been there. Should get a good petrol for 2K
 
toffee_pie said:
can someone get me a 7th gen 'tourer' that looks better than this..?

either that or i will go to get my eyes checked.

91631648.jpg
Click to expand...

What lip kit is on this bad boy? Is that just a lowered typeS? Pre/post facelift? Excuse my ignorance, 6th gen owner :p

Also, for what it's worth, Diesels were only unreliable when they first came out, nowadays they're pretty comparable, and mechanically they are actually slightly simpler than Petrol in many ways. You'll only see the mpg benefit if you do decent sized journeys though.
 
Personally after owning a 7thngen 2.0 petrol then 2.2 diesel the 8th diesel if it was me on that budget and looking for a higher mileage I'd get a 2.0 or 2.4 petrol

If lower miles car I'd go diesel, I never had any issues with mine but the higher in miles you go with a diesel you tend to potentially get more costly faults if they do occur while with petrol you have less to go wrong, this is my experience anyway.

On the 8th I wish I'd got petrol now even on lower mileage car

Bottom line is if you look after them and service them regularly ( I do mine at least twice and sometimes 3 times a year ) you'll tend to get fewer faults.
 
Well ive got a diesel tourer have had it a few years and had a 2.0l petrol vectra sri estate before that i do a 20 mile round trip commute to work and my fuel bill has gone down by half with the honda.
 
ALT said:
Well ive got a diesel tourer have had it a few years and had a 2.0l petrol vectra sri estate before that i do a 20 mile round trip commute to work and my fuel bill has gone down by half with the honda.
Click to expand...
There seems to be widespread belief that diesels become thirstier than the equivalent petrol model when driving only short journeys. This isn't true, as your experience demonstrates.
 
Jon_G said:
There seems to be widespread belief that diesels become thirstier than the equivalent petrol model when driving only short journeys. This isn't true, as your experience demonstrates.
Click to expand...


on the other hand driving repeatedly short journeys on diesels can have serious repercussions compared to their petrol brothers.
 
Short journeys are rubbish full stop! Cold engines etc... Long journeys for the win ;) . More opportunity to run the car warm and spank it from time to time :lol: .
 
toffee_pie said:
on the other hand driving repeatedly short journeys on diesels can have serious repercussions compared to their petrol brothers.
Click to expand...
I guess you are referring to DPFs? I really wouldn't want a diesel that had one of those fitted.

Mind you, bore wash on petrol engines is also a serious issue on short journeys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top