between 14-25k, depending on work location, less than 10 and I would be inclined to go for petrol, higher revving and a bit more entertaining whereas diesels have the torque and cruisability for longer distances IMO
General Bravo Remap Question
- Thread starter twincamms
- Start date
Currently reading:
General Bravo Remap Question
Here comes the MJet v TJet argument again....
Nah, I'm just always interested to know how many miles people do a year to have gone for a derv for the mpgz.
Less than 18-20k and you'll probs find Petrol will be cheaper as well.
I don't think there should be an argument it's down to choice and necessity, I was toying with a Z4 and maserati a couple of weeks ago, problem is where the hell can you use it anymore? The market is now geared up for smaller performance engines like the tjet or similar offerings from various manufacturers.
If I can bring bikes into it you have your litre hyperbikes r1, blade, gsxr1000 ZX10, all capable of 180+ and will do over 100 in 1st, amazing performance, but boring. When I was younger you had to wring the neck out of a bike to get to 100 and this was a major fun factor, the bike was not better than the rider could ever hope to be, each had limitations and that has moved to a biase of the bike will do whatever the rider is capable of and some, so 9 times out of 10 if a bike crashes on a bend it is down to the rider's inabilities to put the bike where it should be - do you see where I'm coming from?
If I can bring bikes into it you have your litre hyperbikes r1, blade, gsxr1000 ZX10, all capable of 180+ and will do over 100 in 1st, amazing performance, but boring. When I was younger you had to wring the neck out of a bike to get to 100 and this was a major fun factor, the bike was not better than the rider could ever hope to be, each had limitations and that has moved to a biase of the bike will do whatever the rider is capable of and some, so 9 times out of 10 if a bike crashes on a bend it is down to the rider's inabilities to put the bike where it should be - do you see where I'm coming from?
love it, says nah - then goes and states that
PS: I'm an oil burner, not that you could tell
Last edited:
love it, says nah - then goes and states that
PS: I'm an oil burner, not that you could tell
I mean with the whole OMGZ CREDIT CRUNCHERSZ! how many people are reading the Daily Mail, trading in there 3 series and buying Bluemotion Polo's or other eco boxes cause they will save LOTS AND LOTS OF MONIEZ!
Doesn't make any sense to me, spend £10k on a slow, shyte Polo to start saving after 100,000 miles!
t-jet ftw. x
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,017
- Points
- 159
Well, depends on how long you keep the vehicle for as well, let say a t-jet 120 and a M-jet 120, same spec. age and milage, I 'm sure when you come to re-sell the vehicle, you will get more for the m-jet, plus the saving on fuel over the years, I don't think there are much different between the two TBH.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 16,219
- Points
- 2,029
But getting more for the car when you sell is irrelivant as you pay more for the car in the first place. Saving on fuel, well thats completely dependant on how many miles you do a year.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,017
- Points
- 159
Hi punto_matt, thats what I try to say, ppl will only think what they pay in the first place (including that compare petrol and diesel thing on parkers.), I'm not saying you will get all th extra you paid back when you sell your car, but let say two owners, one has t-jet and the other has m-jet, both keep their cars for 3 years, doing same milage over the 3 years, i believe when they sell the cars in 3 years time, the total they spent (inc. the cost of the cars and fuel.) will not be much different, I don't have any figure to support my point and I wont spend my time to work it out, just what I beleive thats all.
