Less the cost of having to eat out rather than cooking your own, the fact that B&B or gites normally cost more than a local caravan site per night, especially if there's more than two people involved, and so on. If you stay in Britain, though, the economics change totally. You only save maybe £100 in fuel. You do, however, have the freedom of getting up whenever you like and getting back whenever you like, as long as you're quiet.
I wasn't being totally serious, though. For me, I spend enough on a holiday that I get what *I* want out of it, I'm not too worried about the budget.
And if you want a cheap holiday in the South of France, it's cheaper to fly if there are only two of you travelling and you pre-book.
Your saving of £427 would not go far if a DPF failure occurs. DPF clogs... injector leaks... diesel leaks past injector diluting oil... oil level starts to rise... incorrect oil used... oil pickup clogs... turbo fails... intercooler suffers cracking...
Your rant suggests that diesels with DPF will fail with expensive repair bills every few thousand miles, which simply isn't true.
While I agree that some components of a modern diesel are expensive to replace, generally their life span is pretty good, even on a crappy French car. And overall, the saving on fuel costs is considerably more than the additional servicing and repair costs.
(I currently have one diesel car on 195,000 miles and one petrol car on
136,000 miles. The overall running costs of the diesel are considerably less than the petrol - mile-for-mile it is *massively* less - the diesel does lots more miles than the petrol)
The crappy French car's engine is in fact made by Ford as AIUI is the same unit as the Focus would have. But the suspension is poor, no question, and although I like the 6-speed clutchless semi-auto, it can leave you limping at a roundabout between 1st and 2nd.
No it does not, I am stating that DPF engines are not risk free.
Industry from leasing firms to rebuilders like Ivor Searle are well aware that DPF engines particularly early implementations are NOT risk free. The risk can be down to driving style. The bill can range from =A32500-7000.
Consumers doing "shopping & school run" short-trips are often not aware that driving style can be critical with early systems. Their experience of risk in the past may be a rare failure such as broken timing requiring valves & big ends costing =A31200. They are unaware that risk can be down to driving style and the bills considerably higher.
It is for this reason that Volvo recently added a note to their website (or user manual) that DPF engines are not suited to only short journeys. My comments are to point out that headline mpg should be borne in mind with risk.
Earlier DPF systems are not particularly tolerant.
- DPF generation is poor with short trips, resulting in eventual DPF failure.
- Fuel contamination of oil can cause oil pickup clog, then turbo failure, then engine failure.
- Engine failure is not impossible, typically from incorrect diagnosis & parts replacement.
Recent DPF systems from Ford BMW VAG are very tolerant.
- DPF regeneration is well managed over a *wide range* of driving styles.
- The criticality of low sulphated ash oil is well understood.
- Injector seal design, oil pickup design and software has improved.
End consumers doing lots of short trips need to be aware:
- Check oil level regularly and act if it rises suddenly
- Oil change type & interval matters
- Short trips are not ideal with some implementations
- Do not let dealers replace parts
If you develop an injector leak, and oil level begins to rise, it matters. Urgently. Diluted oil clogs the oil pickup, first the turbo is starved of oil and fails (dealer replaces), the replacement turbo fails (dealer may replace under warranty), then the engine fails. This exact failure path has occurred with multi-model Mazda DPF (early) plus some Volvo and a few Ford (Mondeo, generally reliable). =A31200, =A31200, =A37000.
If the car is driven so as to never enter DPF regen (does not spend sufficient time above 2000rpm or never completes regen due to short trips), the DPF can require replacement (=A31200-2300).
Later cars *specifically* had better DPF software which resulted in better DPF regen.
Additionally, to be blunt, I suspect a fair number of dealers used incorrect oil - sulphated ash does not burn off a DPF filter during regen, and builds up, forcing more regen (excess fuel injected), which in turn results in more clogging. Likewise this scenario may have been a factor in oil dilution (excess fuel ends up oil).
A lot of problems that only occur during repeated short trips were due to insufficient R&D on software. So if a dealer offers a software upgrade particularly re DPF regen then have it done. Other recalls were w.r.t. dieselling.
Nothing to do with life span. Early DPF cars can be very fussy about driving style and this is not properly understood by end consumers. The fleet crowd, or anyone doing 150,000 miles in a few years, will generally a) not find any problem or b) know which systems to avoid.
Some cars are limited to turbo failures - the problem does not develop into engine failures even in the sub-optimal end user driving scenario (nurse doing short trips, repeated cold starts). Others conversely can suffer eventual engine failure from clueless dealers not doing something as simple as dropping the oil pan to see if the pickup is clogged with diesel contaminated oil (plenty of those from Ford Mazda Volvo initially, now most have learnt what to look for).
Key is a seemingly minor problem can quickly escalate into a very expensive failure. That is what people with DPF do not understand. At least Volvo (as i recall) now warns people not to just do short journeys. You could say why would anyone buy a DPF car for such low mileage and stop-start driving? Well surprisingly many people have, without knowing there are cars out there which will bite them with bills.
It will do - and mile for mile the savings are why DPF and turbo diesel "Post PD systems" took off in the last few years. Now on the used car market some bargains appear, but the history of driving style is actually quite important on some.
Take the comments as I intend them.
A lot of software R&D was based around mileage, not around continual short-journey stop-starts and that caught out both marquee and end- users, with the latter left with the bill. Recent cars are much better, but check oil level regularly on DPF diesels re it going UP. A few of the major engine rebuilders believe more frequent oil changes should be "as severe duty schedule, HDEO oil" if someone is not doing all motorway mileage. I think there is some truth to that if a particular model has issues. Mobil likewise in 2005 warned several marquee that oil could no longer keep up, increasing the risk of sludge. Recent oils can keep up (229.51), but I still suspect better information re oil change interval is required for "severe" duty when end consumers do not realise their driving style is "severe" for a DPF vehicle.
It is nothing to do with lifespan. It is to do with driving style and certain DPF implementations. I hope that is clearer.
As we are on the road haven't been back here for a while.
Thanks for all the reasonably on-topic responses - diesel injection technology on recent European cars has no relevance to our NZ holiday :-)
First, the tent:
Very large and impressive as it is our home for 4 months.
To answer some points:
Caravans - very different in NZ and very expensive compared to the UK. Potential large loss between buying and selling. The caravans are designed to go off-road and are built like tanks but seem to have domestic fridges and cookers strapped to the walls instead of the caravan-specific stuff found in the UK, and virtually nothing else. No home comforts.
Comparison to lawn mower - RCD for lawn mower should be under cover. My issue is having the RCD out in the pissing rain. Understood that it is better to protect close to the source but the exposure to rain seems a down side.
WOF - PP's argument that the testing may not be good follows the old arguments about making seat belts compulsory - not everyone will wear them etc. If the testing picks up only 30% of dodgy systems then this is an improvement. No doubt some think that MOT tests are a waste of time as well. Similar arguments apply.
Electricity - well, this is our home for 4 months not a quick doss at the weekend. So we need the computer (hey - I'm using it now) plus lights, fan heater, various chargers. We could manage without but why struggle?
If we had a trailer we could do things the Kiwi way and carry a full size fridge, a large BBQ, etc. but we manage without by filling the back of the car up to the level of the front seat headrests. O.K. for 2, but not for more. Also, trailers are hugely expensive because they are built like tanks to go off-road.
Still got another month or so to go, then Hawaii and the West Coast of the US.
is protected to IP55 so can be exposed to heavy rain. From what you describe the camping outlets in NZ all include RCD protection which is probably at 30mA .
You could put the 10mA device at the tent end of the cable (not recommended if the socket _isn't_ rcd protected) . However, wherever you put it you are likely to need to go out in the rain if there is a problem.
Using RCDs in series isn't usually recommended (as you can never be sure which has tripped and may end up working on a live circuit you think is off) but despite having a lower trip current (10mA) than the post socket which is _probably_ 30mA) it is still likely that if a fault occurred, both RCD's would trip. A 10mA breaker could also be prone to nuisance tripping although if inside the tent this wouldn't necessarily be a major issue.
In your tent /rainstorm scenario the immutable law of Sod would ensure the outlet RCD, outside in the rain and dark, would certainly trip every time.
You misunderstood the point which was that more testing and increased safety are not automatically linked. For example in the UK the "Part P" building regulations introduced a new and more extensive testing regime for mains wiring. As a result the number of people killed and injured by electric faults has _increased_ because the regulation increased the cost of having minor works done so people use unregulated and untested rats nests of extension leads rather than go to the expense of having new sockets fitted.
Can't disagree about Part P. The thinking DIYer does things in a safe way and waits for Part P to become history.
However the WOF system seems to be working in NZ; my view is that if it can be implemented in a sensible and effective manner then it would improve safety for caravans, campervans, and trailers.
As usual, legislation is no use without the commitment to effective enforcement.
Hmm, are WOF tests a bit more strict and like the UK MOT these days? When I was there (left circa 2001) they were a little odd - e.g. very big on things like "visible rust", but very few checks done for the actual soundness of body or chassis components.
A quick dusting over nasty spots on a vehicle with a can of cheap spray paint the day before the inspection could work wonders, allegedly.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.