Scirocco Central

The widening gap between petrol and Diesel prices (about 8p a litre is the norm now!) isn't so much of a bother seeing as we're comparing RON95 to Diesel to see that difference - most 160/200/210 TSI users will be using 97/98/99RON which costs about the same as Diesel. Your 170TDI GT will be worth more than a 2.0TSI come trade in time. When most of the Diesel bashing journalists come out with these headline shocks like it'll take 20 years to break even getting a Diesel, they never take into account enhanced residuals.

DPFs are certainly better than they used to be. My 170 TDI PD Golf used to regularly clog until they performed a software update on the engine. I have never had any bother with my 170TDI CR Roc - the light has never come on. If you're literally doing a 2 or 3 mile commute then you probably shouldn't be in a car (get on the bike), and certainly not a diesel. Doing a minimum of 8 miles each way commute on uncluttered national speed limit roads should be fine.

My Roc is warm in about 4 miles as i'm doing about 1.5 miles on a 30mph stretch of road and then straight onto dual carriageway for the rest of my journey. I get about 48mpg in the winter around the doors, and about 52 in the summer. Long motorway journeys are 15% better than those figures.

Seen the new Golf GTI stats? They reckon that when this is released in the summer, it'll pump out 140g CO2/km and give you 47mpg combined - I wonder what the GTD (rumoured to be 185PS) will do at that point. Will VAG try not to enhance the economy too much so as not to cannibalise sales from the GTI? Hopefully those 2 engines will be in the Roc soon. VAG could've gone further with the GTI - if they'd incorporated cylinder 2/3 shutdown under light load like the GT 1.4 (140PS) I think they'd have probably cracked 52mpg published combined consumption. Sometimes I do feel that they hold back certain tech so as not to harm other range variant sales.

Dimbit wrote: Heated seats are amazing.

yes I agree they are amazing. Especially in this current weather they are a great asset to the car

maisbitt wrote:The widening gap between petrol and Diesel prices (about 8p a litre is the norm now!) isn't so much of a bother seeing as we're comparing RON95 to Diesel to see that difference - most 160/200/210 TSI users will be using 97/98/99RON which costs about the same as Diesel.

Are you sure with this statement? I never use 97/98/99 RON and I can't say I know many people that do, and your OIL is at normal running temperature after 4 miles? I've had diesel cars in the past and one thing is for sure they took a lot longer to warm up than a petrol and I never found the residuals to be any better or for that matter any worse. I still think if you aren't doing 20K+ miles a year then the diesel is'nt worth it.

Mark V wrote:

Paralla wrote: Some Sirocco’s have an electric auxiliary heater (I don’t know if mine has) but if I buy another diesel again i will be specifying heated seats.

Does anybody know if it’s possible to retrofit the electric heater?

Yours almost certainly has it fitted. On cold mornings like this its easy to check - just make sure your climatronic system is set as normal (say 22 degrees) and press A/C on (light on). After a minute or so you will start to feel warm air. You can also check by looking at the coloured wires coming out of the engine bay fuse box - there are photos of what to look for here http://www.sciroccocentral.co.uk/forum/ ... ter#p66634" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It wont work with A/C off.

Thanks,

It seems counter intuitive to me to have the A/C on when what I want is hot air. I guess this is why it has never come on for me.

tony4147 wrote:

maisbitt wrote:The widening gap between petrol and Diesel prices (about 8p a litre is the norm now!) isn't so much of a bother seeing as we're comparing RON95 to Diesel to see that difference - most 160/200/210 TSI users will be using 97/98/99RON which costs about the same as Diesel.

Are you sure with this statement? I never use 97/98/99 RON and I can't say I know many people that do, and your OIL is at normal running temperature after 4 miles? I've had diesel cars in the past and one thing is for sure they took a lot longer to warm up than a petrol and I never found the residuals to be any better or for that matter any worse. I still think if you aren't doing 20K+ miles a year then the diesel is'nt worth it.

I have to agree, it can take about 8 to 10 miles for the oil in my 170 to get to normal operating temperature and that's with me driving at a constant 60mph

It may be more like 5 miles if we're talking oil temp, not coolant temp (oil temp always seems to lag about 20C behind coolant when warming up. I don't use the heaters much in my car - perhaps not pulling heat away from the engine whilst it is still cold hastens my warm up. Perhaps getting up to 70-75mph after 1.5 miles also hastens the warm up.

LIke for like (same model/spec), there are higher diesel residuals in most cases than the equivalent petrol. There is'nt much in it with the most relevant example (a Roc), but Selling a Sep 09 (59 plate) now (according to Parkers website):-

New price>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Private good condition price>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>% retained value
2.0TSI 22445>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13455>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>59.9
2.0TDI170 22355>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13790>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>61.7
2.0TDI140 (GT) 21450>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13370>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>62.3

According to the figures above, a 2.0TSi cost a grand more to buy than a 2.0TDI (140), yet will be worth just £85 more at almost 3.5 years old.

Am I right in the assumption that most here use greater than 95RON in their TSIs? I thought that the 160s were more prone to misfire issues when not using 97RON (although engine management/knock control is supposed to allow usage for both).

I've had the 1.4TSI and now the 2TSI, I never had misfire issues on the 1.4 running 95 RON. As for residuals, Parkers isn't used by the trade it's a guide, and in my experience of buying many, many cars over the years, diesel or petrol, it's down to what the dealer wants to sell on his forecourt, if he has a stack of diesels you will probably get a better deal trading in a petrol and vice versa.
It doesn't bother me losing a couple of % on residual if that is all the difference is between a 140 BHP diesel and a 210 BHP petrol, I'm more than happy to loose a couple of %, in my eyes I know which is the more desirable motor.

I've had the 1.4TSI and now the 2TSI, I never had misfire issues on the 1.4 running 95 RON. As for residuals, Parkers isn't used by the trade it's a guide, and in my experience of buying many, many cars over the years, diesel or petrol, it's down to what the dealer wants to sell on his forecourt, if he has a stack of diesels you will probably get a better deal trading in a petrol and vice versa.
It doesn't bother me losing a couple of % on residual if that is all the difference is between a 140 BHP diesel and a 210 BHP petrol, I'm more than happy to loose a couple of %, in my eyes I know which is the more desirable motor.

Agreed!!!!!

Tony: I appreciate that you'd prefer a 2.0TSI more than a 140TDI and are prepared to take a hit for doing so, but it doesn't take away from the fact that TDIs are cheaper to run in both fuel and residuals (which is what the thread is all about). Parkers is a guide, yes, but it's prices are generally proportional to the "Glass' Bible", and how many people outside the trade get to analyse that? Go to any VW/Audi garage and you will consistently see used TDIs hold their value better than equivalent petrol variants. VAG make exceptionally refined diesels, diesel engines generally have the perception of greater longevity and people are prepared to pay handsomely for them new and used. For some VWs, having the TSI version is very costly in residual terms - my sister recently bought a 1 year old Touran (she has 4 kids). It was a 1.6 FSI, and it was 3 grand cheaper than a 1.6TDI Touran in the same trim which was 4 months older. She was umming and ahhing about it, but if she kept it 3 years she'd never use 3 grands petrol more than diesel, so it was a good buy for her, not so much for the original owner. Any marque that has a good reputation for diesel engines will see better residuals on it's diesel range. It's mostly the Japanese and Korean cars that diesel isn't so much of an attraction for, because they're not as good at them as the Germans.

In owning 6 VWs from new, I have always seen far more used TDIs on the forecourt than Petrols in all but the city cars (Lupo/Polo/Fox), but that doesn't sway the dealer to shaft you on the part ex price if you're bringing in a TDI, especially if you go in to negotiate a new one knowing full well what the guides say your old one is worth. They will always find it easier to sell a TDI, that's why they keep so much stock of them, turnover of stock is higher with a TDI on Golf and upwards. If residuals are higher as a percentage and fuel economy is obviously going to be better, you don't have to be a high miler to make it economically viable to get a TDI over a TSI. Personally I would take a 2.0TSI over a 140TDI, not so for a 170. Bring in the Petrol that gets within 15% of a TDI (and they could do it right now if they brought in 2 cylinder shutdown or Audi valvelift tech as well as all the bluemotion tech) or Diesel goes more than 10% more expensive than petrol (can't believe they've already let it open up to 8p a litre - the taxi drivers and service transport should be up in arms over that) and I would think very hard about maybe leaving the TDI behind.

maisbitt,
I quiet sure that residuals are based on what the dealer wants to take into his stock and what he wants to sell you.
Comparing a 2TSI against a 140TDI isn't exactly a level playing field, try looking at the 1.4TSI (160) if you want to do a proper comparison, the 1.4 I had was averaging 38mpg and on a run 42mpg.
There is plenty of road tests by magazines that have clearly shown that in the majority of cases you need to be doing 20K+ a year to make a diesel worthwhile.
As for you sister with the Touran, I think I would have gone for the TDI in that model as it probably needs the torque of the TDI to get moving.

*Long email alert* - in summary I have shown that even at only 5k miles per annum your running costs will be cheaper with a TDI Roc over a TSI Roc.

Tony: On an individual basis the residuals may be based on what they want to give, but the guides are out there to let you (and they) know what is an average ballpark figure for worth, it is the general concensus. This lets you and they know whether the dealer is shafting you. These guides are updated monthly and are a true reflection of what you should be getting for your car (OK, proportionally Glass' may be less than Parkers in some cases). Whether an individual dealer chooses to lowball you (and you let them) is an individual case. You may find that the dealer gives you more than book price, but no discount on the new car, to make you feel that you're getting a good deal. Excluding your theoretical single cases of being lowballed by your dealer and taking into account what the guides tell you, TDI Sciroccos, Golfs, Passats all hold their value better than their TSI counterparts and the guides show that.

Diesel cars are now more popular than petrol cars in terms of sales. In 2011 a total of 981,594 diesel cars were sold last year, compared to 934,203 petrol models, diesels are in demand and their residuals are higher as a result. (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars ... z2IVHNgzbz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When you are talking about a diesel variant of a car versus a petrol variant of the same model then it is relevant to demonstrate residual value differences, but here is 140TDI (non GT) vs 1.4(160):-

59 plate 140TDI new price = 20365, private good value = 12725, retained value = 62.5%
59 plate 1.4 (160) new price = 19660, private good value = 11715, retained value = 60.0%

I have shown previously that for Scirocco, 2.0TSI vs TDI 170, 170TDI has better residuals, same for the above.

Your requoted "plenty of road tests" showing that you have to do 20k+ miles per annum to break even is very old news, applicable 10 years ago (maybe 5), but certainly not now. 10 years ago all diesels needed to be turbo to compete with their naturally aspirated petrol engines of similar displacement (and still need to be). This meant that diesels had to be more elaborate with their engineering, and that cost more. It was the norm for the diesel variant to be upwards of £1000 more than the petrol counterpart. Diesels weren't as popular back then as fuel costs weren't a high priority to the average end user and they weren't as refined as they are now. Residuals were at best the same as their petrol counterparts, meaning that they had to be used more to make enough fuel savings to counteract the initial higher purchase price which was never seen again in residual values. Most VAG TSIs are similarly sophisticated as their TDI counterparts, and so the price gap is very small, sometimes even the TSI is more expensive, 2.0TSI vs 170 or 177TDI is an example of that.

Even for the average miler now, most Diesels are cheaper to run from the off, in all but the smallest of city cars. A tiny engined, highly frugal petrol variant of one of these will in most cases be cheaper than the diesel variant, and the cost of fuelling a petrol variant over a diesel variant may not be so different for you to then have to make gains in diesel savings to recover your initial expenditure on the diesel variant higher purchase price. This may be subsidised to some degree with higher diesel residuals. You "old" argument may still be partially relevant in this single case.

For the larger cars though (lets stay with the Roc for clarity), for a TDI: if it's more economical from the off (which it is), doesn't cost significantly more than it's petrol counterpart (which is doesn't) and residuals are better (which they are), whatever mileage you are doing, a Diesel Roc is cheaper to run than a TSI Roc.

Lets show you 3 year running costs based purely on initial buying price, trade in prices quoted above and on previous post, (using Parkers guide prices - they will be proportional to Glass', even if the figures aren't exacly the same), 95RON @ 130p/litre vs diesel @138p/litre and VW figures for combined economy. Lets also assume for simplicity that miles quoted here don't alter the used price (they will but if anything a higher mileage TSI will be more heavily affected than the TDI)

170TDI economy = 53.3mpg; 2.0TSI economy = 38.2mpg; 1.4(160) = 42.8mpg; 140TDI = 62.8mpg

170TDI @ 5000 miles per annum = £1763 (fuel costs) + £8565 depreciation = £10328 cost of 3 years motoring

170TDI @ 10000 miles per annum = £3526 (fuel costs) + £8565 depreciation = £12091 cost of 3 years motoring

170TDI @ 20000 miles per annum = £7052 (fuel costs) + £8565 depreciation = £15617 cost of 3 years motoring


2.0TSI @ 5000 miles per annum = £2316 (fuel costs) + £8990 depreciation = £11306 cost of 3 years motoring

2.0TSI @ 10000 miles per annum = £4632 (fuel costs) + £8990 depreciation = £13622 cost of 3 years motoring

2.0TSI @ 20000 miles per annum = £9264 (fuel costs) + £8990 depreciation = £18254 cost of 3 years motoring

As you can see, even at only 5k miles, you will save money buying a 170TDI (which is now available as 177PS BTW) over a 2.0TSI Roc, and the savings open up from £800 over 3 years at 5000 miles per annum to £2600 at 20k miles per annum.

If you'd rather have a TSI than a TDI then fair enough, but it is completely false to say that you will have to do 20k miles per annum just to break even buying a diesel over a petrol for the Scirocco. Similar figures are obtained by comparing 140TDI to 1.4(160), but the savings are even greater as the fuel savings are greater and the TDI has a lower depreciation.

My sister's Touran example was the extreme case of VW cars having great preference for TDI over TSI in relation to retained values. The £3k differential was big enough for her to choose the TSI variant at £8k rather than the TDI variant at £11k.

Wot he said.

TDI's are in a lower insurance group as well. If you have to park you on the mean streets of central London like I do and your insurance is into four figures a few insurance groups less is very welcome. I think if I added up the difference in insurance costs over a three year period between a 2.0TSI and a TDI 170 that would be bigger than the difference in fuel costs over the same time.

If you are 60 years old and park in your garage somewhere in the middle of nowhere it probably makes no difference. in that case ignore this post.

Indeed - my insurance was £100 cheaper than the Golf 122PS TSI I had been driving up until a month ago (to my amazement)! Its all part of the story - the diesel 170 TDI is certainly less costly for me to operate than the Golf.

The Golf does seem to be quite expensive to insure compared to other similar cars. For me, insurance costs between the 2.0 TDI and 2.0 TSI was hardly any difference but even on my mileage (9,000 pa) I calculated that the running costs of the 170 TDI were a lot less than the TSI.

maisbitt wrote:*Long email alert* - in summary I have shown that even at only 5k miles per annum your running costs will be cheaper with a TDI Roc over a TSI Roc.

Tony: On an individual basis the residuals may be based on what they want to give, but the guides are out there to let you (and they) know what is an average ballpark figure for worth, it is the general concensus. This lets you and they know whether the dealer is shafting you. These guides are updated monthly and are a true reflection of what you should be getting for your car (OK, proportionally Glass' may be less than Parkers in some cases). Whether an individual dealer chooses to lowball you (and you let them) is an individual case. You may find that the dealer gives you more than book price, but no discount on the new car, to make you feel that you're getting a good deal. Excluding your theoretical single cases of being lowballed by your dealer and taking into account what the guides tell you, TDI Sciroccos, Golfs, Passats all hold their value better than their TSI counterparts and the guides show that.

Diesel cars are now more popular than petrol cars in terms of sales. In 2011 a total of 981,594 diesel cars were sold last year, compared to 934,203 petrol models, diesels are in demand and their residuals are higher as a result. (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars ... z2IVHNgzbz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

When you are talking about a diesel variant of a car versus a petrol variant of the same model then it is relevant to demonstrate residual value differences, but here is 140TDI (non GT) vs 1.4(160):-

59 plate 140TDI new price = 20365, private good value = 12725, retained value = 62.5%
59 plate 1.4 (160) new price = 19660, private good value = 11715, retained value = 60.0%

I have shown previously that for Scirocco, 2.0TSI vs TDI 170, 170TDI has better residuals, same for the above.

Your requoted "plenty of road tests" showing that you have to do 20k+ miles per annum to break even is very old news, applicable 10 years ago (maybe 5), but certainly not now. 10 years ago all diesels needed to be turbo to compete with their naturally aspirated petrol engines of similar displacement (and still need to be). This meant that diesels had to be more elaborate with their engineering, and that cost more. It was the norm for the diesel variant to be upwards of £1000 more than the petrol counterpart. Diesels weren't as popular back then as fuel costs weren't a high priority to the average end user and they weren't as refined as they are now. Residuals were at best the same as their petrol counterparts, meaning that they had to be used more to make enough fuel savings to counteract the initial higher purchase price which was never seen again in residual values. Most VAG TSIs are similarly sophisticated as their TDI counterparts, and so the price gap is very small, sometimes even the TSI is more expensive, 2.0TSI vs 170 or 177TDI is an example of that.

Even for the average miler now, most Diesels are cheaper to run from the off, in all but the smallest of city cars. A tiny engined, highly frugal petrol variant of one of these will in most cases be cheaper than the diesel variant, and the cost of fuelling a petrol variant over a diesel variant may not be so different for you to then have to make gains in diesel savings to recover your initial expenditure on the diesel variant higher purchase price. This may be subsidised to some degree with higher diesel residuals. You "old" argument may still be partially relevant in this single case.

For the larger cars though (lets stay with the Roc for clarity), for a TDI: if it's more economical from the off (which it is), doesn't cost significantly more than it's petrol counterpart (which is doesn't) and residuals are better (which they are), whatever mileage you are doing, a Diesel Roc is cheaper to run than a TSI Roc.

Lets show you 3 year running costs based purely on initial buying price, trade in prices quoted above and on previous post, (using Parkers guide prices - they will be proportional to Glass', even if the figures aren't exacly the same), 95RON @ 130p/litre vs diesel @138p/litre and VW figures for combined economy. Lets also assume for simplicity that miles quoted here don't alter the used price (they will but if anything a higher mileage TSI will be more heavily affected than the TDI)

170TDI economy = 53.3mpg; 2.0TSI economy = 38.2mpg; 1.4(160) = 42.8mpg; 140TDI = 62.8mpg

170TDI @ 5000 miles per annum = £1763 (fuel costs) + £8565 depreciation = £10328 cost of 3 years motoring

170TDI @ 10000 miles per annum = £3526 (fuel costs) + £8565 depreciation = £12091 cost of 3 years motoring

170TDI @ 20000 miles per annum = £7052 (fuel costs) + £8565 depreciation = £15617 cost of 3 years motoring


2.0TSI @ 5000 miles per annum = £2316 (fuel costs) + £8990 depreciation = £11306 cost of 3 years motoring

2.0TSI @ 10000 miles per annum = £4632 (fuel costs) + £8990 depreciation = £13622 cost of 3 years motoring

2.0TSI @ 20000 miles per annum = £9264 (fuel costs) + £8990 depreciation = £18254 cost of 3 years motoring

As you can see, even at only 5k miles, you will save money buying a 170TDI (which is now available as 177PS BTW) over a 2.0TSI Roc, and the savings open up from £800 over 3 years at 5000 miles per annum to £2600 at 20k miles per annum.

If you'd rather have a TSI than a TDI then fair enough, but it is completely false to say that you will have to do 20k miles per annum just to break even buying a diesel over a petrol for the Scirocco. Similar figures are obtained by comparing 140TDI to 1.4(160), but the savings are even greater as the fuel savings are greater and the TDI has a lower depreciation.

My sister's Touran example was the extreme case of VW cars having great preference for TDI over TSI in relation to retained values. The £3k differential was big enough for her to choose the TSI variant at £8k rather than the TDI variant at £11k.

maisbitt,
Thanks for the looooong post but unfortunately it's quite meaningless.

As you have admitted yourself in the thread 'Buying a used Scirocco' Mark V has bought a 170TDI at a price you consider to be a px price, not a dealers selling price.
Guides are just that a guide, and Parkers, Which, Wisebuyers etc, are all a waste of time, there is only one guide the trade use and that is CAP. I got hold of a CAP guide a couple of years ago and compared it against the guides you can buy in the local newsagent and there was no comparison.
At the end of the day as I've said in the other thread, it's down to what the dealer has in stock, how long it's been in stock (on his books), and what he wants to get rid off, what bonuses he can get on selling you a new car or bonuses he can get from VW stock and what he would like to on his forecourt.

BTW Autoexpress May 8th 2012, did an article stating that you really need to be doing at least 10K a year for a diesel to be worth it, http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars ... l-car.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; even suggest some diesel cars need to be doing 32K a year to pay.

It's all very, very subjective, the net is full of information for and against diesel or petrol, it's very much personal preference. Most mags etc say that the 1.4TSI is the pick of the bunch, have to say I found the 1.4TSI I had to have a good blend of performance/economy and it was cheap to buy.

The This is Money link does say that some cars only need to do a very low mileage to make up the difference, 1,162 miles for a Mini Cooper and 5,542 miles for a Passat are two that stand out. With the cost of the GT scirocco diesels being less than the GT petrol, you are already saving before you drive off the forecourt. Factor in the fuel costs, and depreciation would have to be a lot more for the TDI than the TSI for the opposite to be true.

The best thing to do, as it suggests in the article, is to way up the pros and cons of diesel v petrol for the car you want, your circumstances and finances. However, to dismiss diesels and say you must be doing x miles per year simply isn't true any more, as you say, it's very subjective.

Tony: If you are unwilling to accept the general concensus that the Roc (and Golf, Passat) TDI holds its value better than a TSI, then you must truly believe that part exing is a complete lottery with no yardstick to base what your car is worth, and so wouldn't know if you are getting ripped off by the dealer when they give you a part ex price. If that were true then there would be no argument either way, a part ex price would be completely random and you would not know what to expect to get for your car at 3 years old. When you part ex do you look at the guide prices or do you go in blindly and accept what the dealer offers you with no argument? I would imagine that you put your faith in the guides at that point.

To quote one person's (Markv) bargain here to justify your argument is really not a true reflection of what happens in the marketplace in general, it appears a little low (and not a typical stat - outlying results of a statistical population do not give you a real idea of what is going on generally). On the other hand, as low as MarkV's price sounds, it is not so unexpected to see such a bargain at the age Mark bought his. VW (and most other car makers) depreciation is like a ski slope. In year 1 your car will take a huge hit in value if you part-ex it, year 2 to 3, much less so. It would not be unexpected that a £25k Roc GT (that someone might have paid £23k for if they haggled) may only be worth £18k after a year, £15.5k at 2 years and £13.5k at 3 years. You would be throwing a lot of money away to part ex a new car under 1 year old, depreciation on that Roc will be on an even keel from 2 years old,when depreciation runs down almost in parallel with age (from 2 to 4 years).

Sometimes (but not often) the CAP prices exceed Glass'/Parkers. You can occasionally see this on cabriolets when the weather has been good enough to push up demand following a period of poor weather, or when there is a very desireable car out there where demand hugely exceeds supply.

The "shock" journalism examples quoted have a logical reason why they are poor value as diesels. The Fiat 500 is an example of a car that is a lot more expensive as a diesel than a petrol, as a proportion of initial cost, people won't pay the extra, especially as it is a city car unlikely to do a decent mileage in many cases. The Skoda Octavia is a budget (and popular) fleet car, the BMW 3 series is a premium fleet car. Fleet cars do not hold their value well as they are over-supplied on the used market. On a regular basis huge quantities of these cars get dumped on the used market via auction at low cost. Petrol BMW 3 series are produced in very small quantities in comparison, so someone who wants a 3 series and doesn't want a diesel will pay more as a result because there are fewer to go around. Similar story with the A5 - premium company car that is seen a lot on the roads (compared with other cars at it's price point). If you take any car that is big as a company car, you will always see poor residuals - the Vauxhall Insignia and Ford Focus are prime examples of this in almost all trim levels. You'd have to be nuts to buy one new privately, but they make a second hand bargain.

Rocs/Golfs (and to a lesser extent Passats) are not big fleet cars, the vast majority of them are bought privately and so there is no mass dump of used cars from the fleet market for these models. The used prices you see here are a true reflection of a balanced supply and demand. Because of this, what is generally on the forecourt in supply is in proportion to the demand - the general population of VW buyers don't all want diesel new but prefer a TSI at 2 or 3 years old (or vice versa).

If you ignore the general concensus that a guide price gives you then you clearly don't know what your car is worth at any given time and you could neither say that a TDI or TSI is more expensive to run if you cannot quantify the most expensive part of owning a new or nearly new car - depreciation. On the assumption that you can use guides as a yardstick then the TDI variants of the Roc are cheaper to run than the equivalent TSI variants in same trim.

This is turning into one long @ss thread

Yep it surely is

Sorry about this but we have a TDI that was bought for a very good price (mark V), much lower than maisbitt believes it should be and lower than what the guides are telling him it should be, and it is dismissed as a one off, so I assume he must know what everyone else paid for their cars, because I certainly don't, and therefore I won't dismiss it.
He is quite correct in that I don't know the true value of my car when I come to sell - that's why I go around several dealers to get a price when I px!

What I do know is that when I bought my TSI last October it was over £5k below list, now would a TDI be £5K below list? maybe, maybe not.
You have to factor in what you pay for a car, forget the list price it's totally meaningless, forget the 1 or 2 percent extra residual that a TDI may have, it's ALL down to what you buy the car for and the car sell for, and if I can get over £5k off a TSI and maybe only £3K off a TDI or vice versa then that makes a complete difference to running cost's during the ownership of the car whether it be a TDI or TSI.

I'm not against the TDI, I've owned diesels in the past, but I do believe you have to do the mileage and I don't believe for one minute that they are at running temperature in only 4 miles and that they are a better buy for a person doing as low as 5000 miles a year. I have a TSI now because I'm not doing the mileage. It is all very subjective, some people like the torque of a diesel, some like the high revs of a petrol etc.

maisbett, I'm not having a go, but please, please don't rely and believe in the guides, get to the dealers and do some serious negotiations, you will be very surprised, it really is what the dealer wants to sell and wants to buy in and bonuses from VW etc. Over the years of buying and selling 50+ cars I've seem differences of cost to change of £2K+ between dealers and that's buying new cars.

This is all an interesting read!

I dont think there will ever be a clear winner between Diesel and Petrol. However, with petrol engine downsizing in favour of turbocharged units the gap is narrowing.
Compare the 1.4 twin-charged Roc to the 2.0TDI GT and there is not a massive difference in it. Yes you will be saving yourself a few ££ a month but you will also pay more to put it on the road.

Residual value is a funny one because it completely comes down to the purchase option. I will be leasing my Roc and only doing about 10,000 miles a year. Therefore the petrol was the better for me. If I was buying and travelling greater distances then the Diesel's would have DEFINITELY been worth looking at.

So back to what I said originally, there is no clear winner. It all depends on the owner and there needs.
Of course if all your after is economy get the BlueMotion and you'll be laughing your way to the fuel station but here I have compared the 1.4 160 to the TDI GT which almost have exactly the same performance stats.

Thanks