Are my sums correct here

nastysimon

prospect wrote:

Don't agree.

In everyday driving on nearly all roads in this country, in nearly all conditions, including 'spirited' driving on country roads, most 1.9Turbo Diesels will be a far better solution than an equivalent 2.0 Petrol, in terms of ease of driving and suitable amounts of available power when it is required.

If you are on a race track in a sports/race car (essentially the same thing pedantic pat), then a petrol may be a better option.
That said, I personally drove 2 Alfa 156's in mondello at a promotional event. One was a 1.8Petrol the other a 1.9Turbo Diesel. From my personal experience (not age old hear-say) of comparing these two cars, the diesel was far better and faster on the track, fact. It didn't seem faster, or give a false impression of power, it quite simply was the better engine on the day.

A sports car and a race car serve very different purposes. A race car is designed to be as quick as possible, a sports car is designed for driving pleasure and may not be all that quick (the 1.6 Mazda MX-5 was a good sports car, but hardly fast). Whether you put them on a track or not makes no difference. If you think that they are essentially the same thing, you really are deluding yourself.

Ok, firstly you are comparing a turbo with a normally aspirated engine. Secondly, the 1.9jtd is a 1910cc engine, so it is classified as a 2.0 for tax. The 1970cc petrol engined 156 (the one in the same tax category) is considerably quicker. So, while the 156 1.9jtd might be as quick when driven by a good track driver as a 156 1.8ts (despite weighing 40kg more, most like due to the engine), it has 160 more cc and a turbo to help it.

It really doesn't matter, for sports cars, spirited driving and sheer driving pleasure, a good petrol engine is preferable to a diesel engine.

prospect

Cyrus wrote:

but the 1.9jtd is much more powerful engine than the 1.8ts? its not a fair comparison

True,

So by the same rationale, comments like:

Diesel is for towing trailers
and
Petrol is for raw speed

are also not a fair comparison.

I want to tow a trailer, I think I'll buy a BMW 335D M sport.
Oh, and for a raw power spin around the track, a 1.oL Chev Matiz should do the job.

prospect

nastysimon wrote:

, while the 156 1.9jtd might be as quick when driven by a good track driver as a 156 1.8ts

It was FAR quicker

nastysimon wrote:

It really doesn't matter, for sports cars, spirited driving and sheer driving pleasure, a good petrol engine is preferable to a diesel engine.

This is where we differ in opinion.

galwaytt

nastysimon wrote:

Ok, firstly you are comparing a turbo with a normally aspirated engine. Secondly, the 1.9jtd is a 1910cc engine, so it is classified as a 2.0 for tax.

It really doesn't matter, for sports cars, spirited driving and sheer driving pleasure, a good petrol engine is preferable to a diesel engine.

No, and No.

I drove a GT 1.9JTD on test, when I had a TT, when shopping for a replacement. The GT pulled better, accelerated better (seat of the pants dyno....;) , and was easier to cover ground, briskly in. Used less juice, too. lower-stress hi-po drive, if you will.

Both turbo's, both 4-pots, and, on paper the TT should win, bhp-wise. Naturally, stats on paper aint what it's about.........

Cyrus

so (im assuming its the 180 tt) a 180 bhp 173 ft/lb petrol that accelerates from 0-60 in roughly 7.5 seconds felt slower than a 148bhp 225 ft/lb diesel that has a 9.5 sec 0-60.

pants dyno seems off

Cyrus

prospect wrote:

True,

So by the same rationale, comments like:

Diesel is for towing trailers
and
Petrol is for raw speed

are also not a fair comparison.

I want to tow a trailer, I think I'll buy a BMW 335D M sport.
Oh, and for a raw power spin around the track, a 1.oL Chev Matiz should do the job.

and where were those comments made? i quoted yours exactly, you are making stuff up!

dont get me wrong the 1.9jtd is a nice engine and reasonably spritely, but its not a quick car and it still has a diesel clatter and narrow power band

prospect

Cyrus wrote:

and where were those comments made? i quoted yours exactly, you are making stuff up!

I am summarising, but here is one quote:

mukki wrote:

diesel are for economy or heavy loads !
petrol for speed and power

Cyrus wrote:

still has a diesel clatter and narrow power band

Not really, I would say it is a bit noisey on a cold morning when it is warming up, but sitting in the car you would not notice.
Also the power band is ideal for most Irish driving situations, hence my preference for diesels.

It is all well and good saying petrols are faster off the mark, and under hard accelleration the longer range of 1st and 2nd gear are better, but that is not really useful in this country, unless you want to get arrested/killed.

nastysimon

prospect wrote:

It was FAR quicker

This could be for a multitude of reasons, I can't explain completely, but for one to be "FAR quicker", it would want to have been much more powerful, or driven by a better driver, or had racing slicks while the other was on road tyres, etc. A little power differential would have very little difference on the track.

This is where we differ in opinion.

Yes, you and I differ. So do you and the established motoring press, engineers, etc. I'm on their side until I get some slightly more convincing argument.

galwaytt wrote:

Both turbo's, both 4-pots, and, on paper the TT should win, bhp-wise. Naturally, stats on paper aint what it's about.........

Well, actually, when it comes to speed, that's what it is about. If you can't demonstrate that the Alfa was quicker and show the numbers to prove, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The Audi might have felt slower, but it wasn't. That said, the Alfa probably was a more relaxed drive, it's also not a sports car, which would help explain that too.

Cyrus

prospect wrote:

I am summarising, but here is one quote:




Not really, I would say it is a bit noisey on a cold morning when it is warming up, but sitting in the car you would not notice.
Also the power band is ideal for most Irish driving situations, hence my preference for diesels.

It is all well and good saying petrols are faster off the mark, and under hard accelleration the longer range of 1st and 2nd gear are better, but that is not really useful in this country, unless you want to get arrested/killed.

the car is well insulated and damped to keep the noise from intruding too much but the noise is there, and as to the usefulness of petrols being faster off the mark etc surely thats only your opinion? hasnt got me killed or arrested yet

nastysimon

prospect wrote:

I am summarising, but here is one quote:




Not really, I would say it is a bit noisey on a cold morning when it is warming up, but sitting in the car you would not notice.
Also the power band is ideal for most Irish driving situations, hence my preference for diesels.

It is all well and good saying petrols are faster off the mark, and under hard accelleration the longer range of 1st and 2nd gear are better, but that is not really useful in this country, unless you want to get arrested/killed.

It's noise is also less plesant when pressed hard. The roar of the petrol engine is much nicer to the ear. And that diesel clatter can be heard whenever you go to overtake.

Also, being quicker under hard accelleration is not dangerous, it is safer. It allows you to overtake quicker and therefore safer. Being able to get to the speed limit faster is safer and not illegal or likely to get yourself killed.

ciarsd

What an interesting thread.

As regards 1.8 T Spark vs 1.9JTD comparisons - there is none. I owned and drove both, JTD wins hands down.
You don't have to keep revs high and constantly check gears pre-manoeuvre, the power is at hand in all gears.

The JTD (IMO and quite a few VW PD driving workmates I've had this discussion with) agree that the JTD is far quieter than the VW PD range and is one of the quietest on the market.
The paper stats are pretty even for the JTD vs PD, but this means nothing on the road. I've not driven a PD150 so cannot comment, I have however driven a couple of PD130's.. one which was remapped (allegidly - didn't feel any different).
Sure it's not got the characteristics of a large cc'd straight 6 petrol, but what do you expect when making a chalk and cheese comparison.

Sure it doesn't have the refinement of a 6-Pot diesel, but the price differences make this an unfair comparison.

IMO the only reason the JTD has a crap paper 0-100km is because you need to pull 3rd gear for it to get there, whereas with petrol engined equivalents, this can be achieved with 2nd.

Cyrus, were you considering the 330D/530D when choosing your new car? Interesting thread for justification.

prospect

nastysimon wrote:

This could be for a multitude of reasons, I can't explain completely, but for one to be "FAR quicker", it would want to have been much more powerful, or driven by a better driver, or had racing slicks while the other was on road tyres, etc. A little power differential would have very little difference on the track.

They were both standard road going versions, driven by the same driver, me. Almost everyone that drove them had the same opinion, and their times also confirmed, the diesel was FAR quicker. Stop trying to pick fault where none exists..

nastysimon wrote:

Yes, you and I differ. So do you and the established motoring press, engineers, etc. I'm on their side until I get some slightly more convincing argument..

So by this statement you mean that your OPINION is better, or more qualified than mine!! What an arrogant person you are.

nastysimon wrote:

Well, actually, when it comes to speed, that's what it is about. If you can't demonstrate that the Alfa was quicker and show the numbers to prove, you really don't have a leg to stand on. The Audi might have felt slower, but it wasn't. That said, the Alfa probably was a more relaxed drive, it's also not a sports car, which would help explain that too.

I don't need figures to back up my opinion. You have obviously no interest in what others think, and I can see you are the type of person who always considers themself right.
Also my argument is not about speed (read the posts), it is about how the engine is more suitable for driving in everyday situations. Maybe you consider accelerating away from the lights and 'beating' a family in a diesel MPV who have no interest in 'racing' you to qualify you as a "petrol head". I consider that selfish and irresponsible.

prospect

nastysimon wrote:

Also, being quicker under hard accelleration is not dangerous, it is safer. It allows you to overtake quicker and therefore safer. Being able to get to the speed limit faster is safer and not illegal or likely to get yourself killed.

Off the mark, it is purely for high testoterone, low brain level, tennage childishness.

In the mid range, when safe overtaking is the issue, 9 out of 10 Turbo Diesels will easily out perform a similarly sized petrol engine.

Cyrus

ciarsd wrote:

What an interesting thread.

As regards 1.8 T Spark vs 1.9JTD comparisons - there is none. I owned and drove both, JTD wins hands down.
You don't have to keep revs high and constantly check gears pre-manoeuvre, the power is at hand in all gears.

The JTD (IMO and quite a few VW PD driving workmates I've had this discussion with) agree that the JTD is far quieter than the VW PD range and is one of the quietest on the market.
The paper stats are pretty even for the JTD vs PD, but this means nothing on the road. I've not driven a PD150 so cannot comment, I have however driven a couple of PD130's.. one which was remapped (allegidly - didn't feel any different).
Sure it's not got the characteristics of a large cc'd straight 6 petrol, but what do you expect when making a chalk and cheese comparison.

Sure it doesn't have the refinement of a 6-Pot diesel, but the price differences make this an unfair comparison.

IMO the only reason the JTD has a crap paper 0-100km is because you need to pull 3rd gear for it to get there, whereas with petrol engined equivalents, this can be achieved with 2nd.

Cyrus, were you considering the 330D/530D when choosing your new car? Interesting thread for justification.

i hope this isnt gone way off topic, and im not looking for a row, it is an interesting thread

i dont think anyone is trying to compare the 1.8ts to the 1.9jtd, the 2.0 jts would be a fairer comparison i think. even at that imagine the diesel would have better overtaking power.

personally i never considered the 330/530d. the 530i/330i is quicker is 95% of situations, plus my dad has a 520d e60 auto and the noise of the diesel with an auto box really put me off. added to that most used diesels are high milers for obvious reasons (ie person who bought them probably bought them to do higher miles)

Cyrus

prospect wrote:

Off the mark, it is purely for high testoterone, low brain level, tennage childishness.

In the mid range, when safe overtaking is the issue, 9 out of 10 Turbo Diesels will easily out perform a similarly sized petrol engine.

such a broad sweeping statement, if its std boring rep mobiles like a std mondeo etc yes the 1.8 diesel is normally better in the mid range than the 2.0 petrol or whatever.

if its performance cars then that argument doesnt stack up.

In most cases the 2.0 golf gti is quicker than the 2.0 golf gt, bmw 530i is quicker than the 530d, plenty of other examples

nastysimon

prospect wrote:

They were both standard road going versions, driven by the same driver, me. Almost everyone that drove them had the same opinion, and their times also confirmed, the diesel was FAR quicker. Stop trying to pick fault where none exists..

How much quicker is "FAR quicker"? Sorry, I just don't believe that the diesel was "FAR quicker" when driven by a driver who was willing to drive both at their limits. If I experienced it, I might change my tune, but your claim is against all of my experience of diesels and everything that I have read by experts.

So by this statement you mean that your OPINION is better, or more qualified than mine!! What an arrogant person you are.

Not at all, just that mine has the weight of experts behind it, yours doesn't seem to. I tend to trust experts until I'm given very good reason to believe that they are wrong. It tends to be the safest course of action. One might say that going against the experts without very solid proof to back you up is much more arrogant, though I will still refrain from calling you such. Please keep the personal insults out of it.

I don't need figures to back up my opinion. You have obviously no interest in what others think, and I can see you are the type of person who always considers themself right.
Also my argument is not about speed (read the posts), it is about how the engine is more suitable for driving in everyday situations. Maybe you consider accelerating away from the lights and 'beating' a family in a diesel MPV who have no interest in 'racing' you to qualify you as a "petrol head". I consider that selfish and irresponsible.

The section to which you are responding wasn't directed at you, but galwaytt. I always consider myself correct until I have good reason to believe otherwise (don't we all), especially when I have good experience of the area. I tend to trust experts over non-experts and trust their experience until I have significant experience of an area myself. My experience backs up my opinion. Yours may well back up your own, but it still doesn't convince me. I never every suggested that I ever engaged in traffic light racing, so why do you feel the need to personally attack me over it. As it is, I like to be quick away at the lights, but I don't accelerate hard as there is no need. Being quick away means that more can get through. You really are making huge leaps from my suggesting that being able to accelerate hard is important.

Off the mark, it is purely for high testoterone, low brain level, tennage childishness.

In the mid range, when safe overtaking is the issue, 9 out of 10 Turbo Diesels will easily out perform a similarly sized petrol engine.

I never said that one should do so off the line, I just pointed out that having the ability to do so is safer than not. Believe me, having a 0-60 time of 5 seconds has its perks over a 0-60 of 10, even from safety points of view. When cruising and going to overtake, you should complete the move as quickly as possible, so staying in 5th gear is not the best solution, for diesel or petrol. Since it takes as long to drop two gears as one, you are better off in the petrol, which can be made to pass faster.

Now, I'm not happy with the way this thread is moving. Personal insults aren't needed. I accept that for you a diesel is a better choice, but I will not accept that one would pick a diesel over a petrol for the purer driving experience. There is nothing that you can say that will change that opinion, though if you could point me at an article by an expert, that might change it. Similarly, a good sports car with a diesel engine might too.

Eoin

nastysimon wrote:

There is nothing that you can say that will change that opinion, though if you could point me at an article by an expert, that might change it. Similarly, a good sports car with a diesel engine might too.

None of the ones I mentioned earlier would do?

BMW 335d, Alfa GT & Brera. BMW 535d may not be a "sports car" as such, but a colleague of mine coming from a petrol coupe drove one, and found the twin turbo makes for a seriously quick ride. I don't know what the merc coupes are like, but they come with diesel engines.

Cyrus

its a matter of preference i spose, if i was looking at a 335, id go for the i not the d

nastysimon

eoin_s wrote:

None of the ones I mentioned earlier would do?

BMW 335d, Alfa GT & Brera. BMW 535d may not be a "sports car" as such, but a colleague of mine coming from a petrol coupe drove one, and found the twin turbo makes for a seriously quick ride. I don't know what the merc coupes are like, but they come with diesel engines.

None of these are even close to being a sports car. You'll also note that the top of the line for each of those cars is petrol engined. A bit odd that

el tel

I drive mostly on motorways and I find the main benefit of a diesel over petrol (aside from less frequent trips to the pumps) is the lower revs at M-way cruising speeds. I simply couldn't stand being in an average sized petrol car for long perods at anything much over 60mph.

However, in city driving I found that in my diesel I had to stir the box much more than I do in my other (petrol) car which I believe is down to the the much narrower power band of the diesel engine. For this reason I much prefer the petrol for urban driving.

prospect

Cyrus wrote:

such a broad sweeping statement, if its std boring rep mobiles like a std mondeo etc yes the 1.8 diesel is normally better in the mid range than the 2.0 petrol or whatever.

if its performance cars then that argument doesnt stack up.

In most cases the 2.0 golf gti is quicker than the 2.0 golf gt, bmw 530i is quicker than the 530d, plenty of other examples

I am confused here Cyrus,

My 'broad sweeping statements' are in response to 'broad sweeping statements' by others, yet you seem happy to let those go. Is it because those statements suit your POV that you find them acceptable?

And before you ask for an example, here is one:
"Yes, you and I differ. So do you and the established motoring press"
Not the press I read. More and more are choosing the diesel engines as the best choice for various makes & models.

galwaytt

Cyrus wrote:

so (im assuming its the 180 tt) a 180 bhp 173 ft/lb petrol that accelerates from 0-60 in roughly 7.5 seconds felt slower than a 148bhp 225 ft/lb diesel that has a 9.5 sec 0-60.

my point exactly......

it'd be interesting to know what 30-60 times in one gear are, though....

..pants dyno seems off

no more than anyone else's, and that's my point..........the driving experience is subjective, and that's why asking people what they 'feel/think' is one thing, then trying to bash them over the head with objective data (usually mfr's optimistic data at that......) is pointless......

oh, and as for the "it's not a sports car" comment, the TT is a Golf/Beetle...........so where does that leave us?

galwaytt

nastysimon wrote:

The section to which you are responding wasn't directed at you, but galwaytt

....and, it's your ball, and you're taking it home, so others can't 'play'........wow.

.. I always consider myself correct until I have good reason to believe otherwise (don't we all)

...Ha - excellent !! So I only need to convince you you're incorrect - belief based statement - and that'd make me right instead ?! Cool

..even if the data proves otherwise.

Good thread, keep it up.....:rolleyes: - oh, hello, I've just spotted the first half of your name......irony, huh?:p

prospect

nastysimon wrote:

Now, I'm not happy with the way this thread is moving. Personal insults aren't needed. I accept that for you a diesel is a better choice, but I will not accept that one would pick a diesel over a petrol for the purer driving experience. There is nothing that you can say that will change that opinion, though if you could point me at an article by an expert, that might change it. Similarly, a good sports car with a diesel engine might too.

I am not overly happy with it either.

I have not personally insulted anyone here, and do nopt appreciate being told my opinion does not matter because someone claims some nameless person, or group of people agrees with them.

I never mentioned 'pure driving experience', as a matter of fact, i have repeatedly mentioned 'real driving experience', as in day-to-day, what-we-actually-use/need-our-cars-to-do experience. Stop trying to twist my points to help your argument.

I don't want to change your opinion, unlike you, i can respect anothers opinion. However, nothing you can say will convince me that for day to day, real world driving petrol is better than diesel.

I find it a bit sad that you are depending on the opinion of a motoring journalist to help you form yours? Drive them, if you prefer petrols, fine that is up to you, but to allow someone else make up your mind .

Cyrus

prospect wrote:

I am confused here Cyrus,

My 'broad sweeping statements' are in response to 'broad sweeping statements' by others, yet you seem happy to let those go. Is it because those statements suit your POV that you find them acceptable?

And before you ask for an example, here is one:
"Yes, you and I differ. So do you and the established motoring press"
Not the press I read. More and more are choosing the diesel engines as the best choice for various makes & models.

not for sports models tho, sure the 1.4 litre diesel may be the best choice in some super mini, but where has the diesel been chosen as the best choice in a sporty saloon and/or a sports car?

prospect

Cyrus wrote:

not for sports models tho, sure the 1.4 litre diesel may be the best choice in some super mini, but where has the diesel been chosen as the best choice in a sporty saloon and/or a sports car?

Why is this conversation relying soley on a loose definition of a sports car.

I am talking about everyday situations.

Give me one example of normal everyday driving in Ireland where a Porsche 911 turbo is more suitable than a 335M Sport.

nastysimon

prospect wrote:

I am not overly happy with it either.

Then lets end it.

I have not personally insulted anyone here, and do nopt appreciate being told my opinion does not matter because someone claims some nameless person, or group of people agrees with them.

You have. You called me arrogant. If you would care to retract that comment, fine, otherwise you have directly and intentionally insulted me.

I never mentioned 'pure driving experience', as a matter of fact, i have repeatedly mentioned 'real driving experience', as in day-to-day, what-we-actually-use/need-our-cars-to-do experience. Stop trying to twist my points to help your argument.

A pure driving experience is part of a real driving experience. Cars are not so much what we need and more what we want. I want a driving experience where I can be at one with the car rather than just operate it. I find that a petrol engined car is better for this. I also find that most people who enjoy driving agree with me. As do most automotive journalists and all the automotive engineers I have ever met.

I don't want to change your opinion, unlike you, i can respect anothers opinion. However, nothing you can say will convince me that for day to day, real world driving petrol is better than diesel.

I don't intend to, but I believe that diesel does not give as good a drive for those who want to drive (again, as opposed to operate).

I find it a bit sad that you are depending on the opinion of a motoring journalist to help you form yours? Drive them, if you prefer petrols, fine that is up to you, but to allow someone else make up your mind .

Where did I ever suggest that I used their opinion to form my own. I have formed mine through years of driving and in particular the last few years when I have driven diesels (all modern). That said, when an expert contradicts my opinion, I listen. Maybe they know something I don't.

Cyrus

prospect wrote:

Why is this conversation relying soley on a loose definition of a sports car.

I am talking about everyday situations.

Give me one example of normal everyday driving in Ireland where a Porsche 911 turbo is more suitable than a 335M Sport.

every situation, its a faster car neither are any use for off road, so for on road driving the 911 turbo will a) get you to the speed limit quicker and b) complete an overtaking move quicker.

prospect

Cyrus wrote:

every situation, its a faster car neither are any use for off road, so for on road driving the 911 turbo will a) get you to the speed limit quicker and b) complete an overtaking move quicker.

Okay,

-Firstly, top end speed is not important, as they both achieve 120Km/h which is the maximum allowable speed in this country.

-Getting to the limit quicker, why? I don't know the exact figures, but there is probably about 2 seconds in the difference, which can only be achieved in ideal conditions, being driven expertly by a professional. Also, if you achieve the 2 seconds,you will loose them at the next bend, or roundabout, or traffic lights, or slower car you meet on the road. So getting to the limit quicker is not really much use, except for showing off maybe?

-Over taking quicker. Similarly, the on-paper figures for 30-70 acceleration, or whatever band you choose, can only be achieved by professional drivers in controlled situations. I would be willing to bet in a real situation if you were to drive both, there would only be milliseconds in the difference between the car. These are not going to save any lives.

Now, seeing as our sample car seems to be accepted as a 'sports car', then let me give you some advantages of the diesel 'not sports car':
1. It will be cheaper to buy.
2. It will be cheaper to fun in terms of fuel.
3. It will be cheaper to insure.
4. It will have more internal space.
5. It will have a better boot.
6. It will achieve the same legal top speed.
7. The acceleration will be as good as you ever need it to be, unless you are racing a McLaren F1 at the lights on Newlands cross, which you shoudn't really be doing.
8. When you want to go on a longer drive, and are feeling relaxed, it will be more comfortable and easier to drive.
9. When you want a spirited drive within the legal limits, it will be easily capable.

To go back to the original point made by yourself, regarding your calculation and the small difference between petrol and diesel,

I would say that your figures are kind of clouded by the fact that you only cover relatively small mileage, and also the large capacity engine you picked. Also, you did not take resale into consideration. It is quite simply a fact that diesels have better residuals. Why, because more people want them, despite nastysimons revelation that nearly everybody in the world prefers petrol, (actually on that point, maybe nastysimon should consider visiting outher countries of this world, where the percentage of diesels sold are far higher than in Ireland).

Anyway, I am fed up with this thread, so best of luck with your new purchase.

Cyrus

the thread had nothing to do with my purchase, i was more interested in seeing how the figures stacked up and it was for other people to use when making a decision, a lot of people pay a premium for diesel but only drive 10000 miles a year.

and to make a fair comparison lets compare the 335i vs the 335d

335d is nearly 2k more expensive but will save that in fuel over 2-3 years depending, both will have similar residuals as fuel type aside irish people have an averison to larger engines anyway.

the 335d is surely not any easier or more difficult to drive than the 335i, both have loads of power and loads of torque and are faster than each other in different situations.

for me id take the 335i, sportier sound and larger power band.

and the most people that want diesels that you refer to normally want the rocketship known as the passat 1.9tdi

id take a 335d if someone wanted to give me one tho!!!