Im looking at getting a new Suzuki Swift for my wife and she will be doing about 30,000 km a year in it. But what is best value with small cars now getting petrol or diesel. Diesel looks more economical on paper but there are things like road user charges etc. Would a Swift diesel at 4.2l per 100km or a Swift Sport petrol at 6.5l per 100km be better over a 6 year peorid.
intrade,
Oct 14, 3:22pm
petrol forget diesel you would want to find out if the fuelconsumption figures match the manufacturer one we got a 1,2 dacia sandero in europe and its doing 5.6 to maximum 6.4 liter per 100k and will do 100kph up any hill . if the petrol figures are correct then you will be way cheaper then with the diesel when you add it all up thats for the 1,2 suzuki i think its fuel figure is 4.8 liter petrol for 100km
intrade,
Oct 14, 3:47pm
30,000km is quite a bit driving also consider o lpg injection kit to bring down fuel cost just a idea to explore. total cost of that you can get lpg-fuel cards i think for all-over lpg price on pumps.
splinter67,
Oct 14, 3:49pm
For the money that an lpg system costs buy a diesel and they are set up to run low sulpher fuel so ya dont need any additives in ya fuel
this is correct it will be fitted with ulsd save injection system being a 2012 model. could be worth the diesel with 30,000km per year needs to be calculated , lpg system also need testing so take your time and calculate it all and you want to price a prince vsi system if you go lpg as not all lpg systems are the same efficient.
mm12345,
Oct 14, 4:18pm
If I'm reading the new regs right, then RUC is now $48/1,000km for <3.5 tonnes, and they got rid of the "2T" sticker. The smaller / economical petrol cars do around or sometimes a bit better than 6l/100km, equivalent diesels around or just over 4l/100km. Total it up, and there's no economy advantage to small diesels - tax has killed them in this country. It's ridiculous that a 1300 kg car pays almost the same tax per km as a 5,900kg truck. (up to 6 tonne is only a few dollars more per 1000km). It's also ridiculous that hybrids like the Prius, which are a hopeless economic proposition for normal/average family use, get subsidised for RUC to the extent that for uses where they're actually pretty good (high annual mileage, lots of standing/running/stop-start - ie taxis) they're paying about $3k less road tax (assuming 100,000km/year) than they should be. Even without the "subsidy" a Prius would probably stack up pretty well for Taxi use. So your average motorist is subsidising taxi drivers and medium sized delivery trucks.Brilliant.
slarty45,
Oct 14, 4:45pm
15,000km service for Suzuki no worries with sump sludge & clogged filters
no sign of a Polo diesel at volkswagen co nz
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 4:50pm
O.K so I am bored and decided to do the math on this over a year @ 30'000km, here it is:
Suzuki Swift Diesel Vehicle License (rego) $410 RUC $1440 Fuel $1890 Total $3740
Suzuki Swift Sport License $280 Fuel $4368 Total $4648
VW Polo TSI License $280 Fuel $3562
Total $3841
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 4:53pm
No need for a Polo diesel, their better technology petrols make for similarly cheap running to the Suzuki Diesel.
1.3 Fiat Diesels don't sludge up with 30'000km intervals, the computer will shorten the time if its doing endless short runs or some such. Possibly Suzuki's computer does not have this facility or there are other Suzuki spec items that need changing at this time.
I suspect though, more likely its in case Suzuki drivers use incorrect oil or for marketing reasons if their petrol engines can't do 30K service intervals which would make the Fiat Diesel show them up.
Anyhow, that's possibly a reason to go with the VW, I am pretty sure the Polo could be set to variable intervals which means that more than likely it would only need an annual service rather than 6 monthly for the Suzuki. So another bonus there.
I would also be considering the transmission situation, the DSG in the Polo is service free (properly service free as it runs a dry clutch). The Swift if CVT is going to need some servicing (whether they admit this or not if its going to last, and it will be a significant cost), I also would not do that sort of milage in a CVT vehicle unless it has a replaceable CVT filter. If the Suzuki does not I would get a manual one or not at all.
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:15pm
Regarding the CVT, check with Suzuki but I think it is a 60'000km service interval on those, I will take a guess and say $400 for a CVT service, I wouldn't be surprised if its more than that though so worth asking.
Again, if that unit doesn't have a replaceable filter I would shelve the CVT Swift idea all together.
Be aware that like Toyota they try to fudge the lines and call it a "7 gear" transmission, resumably so it sounds more up to date like the better DSG twin clutch transmissions that Ford and VW use. So to make it very clear,it does not have any gears in it, it is a CVT, all it has is a gimmicky tiptronic mode where the computer holds particular ratios and pretends they are gears.
bunny2121,
Oct 14, 5:17pm
Ok, feedback good thanks. Car will be doing open road and town running everyday so guess I need to consider gearing as well. One big thing is servicing cost between VW and Suzuki. Im pretty sure Suzuki have there cost free motoring which includes free services etc. But not sure how long it goes for into cars life.
bunny2121,
Oct 14, 5:18pm
So according to that diesel seems the way to go.
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:21pm
If I remember correctly the cost free servicing is only 3 years or 45'000km so is only going to last you 18 months. Then you have the extra cost of the CVT servicing and you will have to continue to service it 6 monthly vs 12 monthly with the VW(if my assumption for variable intervals with the VW is correct)
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:22pm
No, VW is the way to go! Much quicker, more comfortable, nicer vehicle than the Swift Diesel for much the same running costs. If the Swift is a CVT/Auto realistically running costs will be cheaper with the VW even if you service both every 6 months, service the VW 12 monthly and it becomes quite a lot cheaper.
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:26pm
Just checked, yes it looks like the 1.2 TSI Polo can be set to variable intervals aso. This means that depending on how its driven you will get up to 38'000km between services. That's a real bonus both cost wise and hassle wise. So with that and the fact that there is no CVT to service the VW is going to be significantly cheaper to run over time.
countrypete,
Oct 14, 5:31pm
The Swift Diesel is manual only, so the comparison with VW's dodgy DSG is irrelevant.
One plus for the Swift Diesel over the petrol is the driveability.The Suzuki engineers have taken a relatively low-power engine and matched it with well-chosen gear ratios to make a lively drive.I just read a report from Allan Dick in the recent "NZ Today" mag (I think it was that) and he was particularly effusive in his praise of the Swift.
robotnik,
Oct 14, 5:34pm
What about the purchase price of a diesel car v a petrol one! Diesels are usually several thousand more expensive to buy new.
chebry,
Oct 14, 5:34pm
Nobody mentioned an automatic if you wanr economy and reliability manual is the way to go
countrypete,
Oct 14, 5:34pm
Rubbish as usual, Jazz is trying to take over a thread with his one-eyed VW sales agenda.
The Swift has way better resale value from new, and as this is a major cost in running any car, you will find that it in fact the Swift has a far lower life-cost, and a better drive to boot!
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:35pm
Given I actually own a car with this exact same engine, I can tell you that the VW 1.2 tsi is a significantly better drive again. There is nothing "dodgy" about the DSG thats just silly uninformed scaremongering. We have also had 4 cars with DSG.
I have been in both camps here, as soon as the OP drives the Diesel swift and then the 1.2 TSI Polo they will see what I am talking about. its night and day.
Given she is doing 30'000km a year DSG is totally the way to go even juts from a driving perspective. That's a lot of shuffling of gears in the little diesel with its very short power band.
countrypete,
Oct 14, 5:38pm
VWTS1 $29,750.Swift Diesel $25,990
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:41pm
This is just silly wives tale nonsense, the resale on the DSG Polo will be just fine and likely quite similar. Go and have a look at 5-7 year old swifts vs Polo's and see for yourself. The DSG Polos will have even better resale too than what we see historically as the older Polo's were no where near as good (that's why I don't recommend them).
Come back when you have owned/driven/serviced some of these cars.
countrypete,
Oct 14, 5:41pm
To answer the OP's question without getting sidetracked with the VW nonsense, The decision depends on the likely distance travelled.If it's high, go with the diesel.Otherwise the petrol option is likely better, but the differences are actually pretty marginal.
thejazzpianoma,
Oct 14, 5:43pm
They were also looking at the Swift Sport which is dearer AND they could also consider a regular 1.4 Polo from just $22500 which is still going to perform similarly the Swift Diesel.
Your silly uninformed trolling is just annoying as usual.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.