Is Diesel now a waste of time?

E92

dizzydiesel wrote: »

You try getting 37.7 mpg(official average fuel consumption) in the petrol BMW cruising at 80mph....not going to happen(says who?). The diesel will easy get 50-55mpg at this speed(says who?).....even possible to get 60 (I can average 60mpg easy)

37.7mpg + 60% is 60mpg(but the 530i officially does 50.4 mpg in out of town driving, ever heard of a fair comparison?)
37.7 *1.6 = 60mpg(actually when we use proper figures we find that 60/50.4 = 19%)
This proves my point that diesels are 40-60% more efficient.(see above why this is just plain wrong)

Ok, you have more power in the petrol, but the arguement is about econemy. The PD diesels are quiet now too(they're quiet compared to an earthquake, sure but are nowhere near as quiet as even common rail diesel, let alone petrol). Fun revving to 7000 is for children in their Starlets.(oh so all petrol fans are boy racers now? nice generalisation there:rolleyes:. Do you like cars at all? What about noise? Oh wait all diesel does is make a racket, sorry you wouldn't know anything about a decent noise from a car)
It's all about effortless power from a torque filled diesel(and since cars have gearboxes and rev limiters what you do is change up later and see diesel torque disappear in your rear view mirror).

Not to mention the resale cost....the diesel holds value. Mine has 150k miles on the clock and still pulls like crazy(my E34 has 170k and still revs to the rev limiter... so what?). The engine has never had any work.....oil changed every 10k and a new belt and water pump at 60k and 120k. I have a feeling that the engine will outlive the chassis.

When you're ready to deal in reality, I'll answer you, but I'm not a member of this forum to deal with insults, piss takes and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I only bothered responding this time because you're new to the forum but I'm not responding to any further bull you will post.

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

Since you like diesel torque, why not drive a bus or a truck, or a train. I'm sure the big engines with loads and loads of torque are great... that's why buses are so much slower than cars, because of all this "wonderful":rolleyes: torque?

Torque is king in cars without gearboxes. Those of us who live in the real world like power and engines that can rev.

E92, no offence, but you really dont seem to have driven anything really fast or at least for enough time to get a good feel on what gobs of BHP and torque bring to the table. I know your car well as my uncle drives one and swears by it, almost irrationally so. Its classy and has a real nice sound. However its painfully dieing for torque given its heavy weight.

My 6speed Manual 440BHP S4 was lots of fun to drive. It revved fast, minimal turbo lag, Milltek exhaust growl and the twin K04 turbos literally audibly howled under boost. However it was the fat torque band (over 400ft/lbs) that made it so much fun. Im not saying I never (or couldnt or wouldnt) dropped gears, but it was FUN to cruise like a stealth fighter in 4th then floor it and be rocketed away. More fun to see the next guy lurch backwards when dropping down.

Gear munching was when traffic-light-drag-racing and a low down, fat torque band meant you spent more time accelerating than clutching. You dont have to be doing something with your left hand and foot to get a big smile you know.

JHMEG

Looking at your post title. Gobs of torque is great only if accompanied by gobs of power. Gobs of torque on its own is seriously boring (think cargo ships, Transits and 1.9 TDIs).

Gobs of power without gobs of torque is also great in typical situations (think S2000 or RX8).

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

Looking at your post title. Gobs of torque is great only if accompanied by gobs of power. Gobs of torque on its own is seriously boring (think cargo ships, Transits and 1.9 TDIs).

Gobs of power without gobs of torque is also great in typical situations (think S2000 or RX8).

Well thats exactly the crux of it. If you have enough power (200BHP+) with stupid amounts of torque, youre laughing and the whole gears things doesnt come into play. If you have piddly BHP and well, any amount of torque, then yeah, you are in the realm of vans and certain popular sub 2L engines (non-remapped of course) :pac:

Its that cross over point that arguements rage over.

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

Well thats exactly the crux of it. If you have enough power (200BHP+) with stupid amounts of torque, youre laughing and the whole gears things doesnt come into play. If you have piddly BHP and well, any amount of torque, then yeah, you are in the realm of vans and certain popular sub 2L engines (non-remapped of course) :pac:

Its that cross over point that arguements rage over.

Ok, well it sounds like we're starting to make progress here. Maybe we'll move on to the heavy particulates next and get them out of the way?:)

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

Ok, well it sounds like we're starting to make progress here. Maybe we'll move on to the heavy particulates next and get them out of the way?:)

Hey, Im the bio-fuels fan, no argument from me on PMs and NOX! It just so happens that of the 3 bio fuels available (E85, BioDiesel and straight veg oil) one engine can run both, the diesel.

As Ive said before, Im working on converting my petrol car to E85 and Diesel to BioD/Veg.

vectra

And so the Usual Diesel haters come along and destroy yet another simple thread..
I wonder if anyone bothered to read the original question?? :rolleyes:

conneem-TT

vectra wrote: »

And so the Usual Diesel haters come along and destroy yet another simple thread..
I wonder if anyone bothered to read the original question?? :rolleyes:

The question has been somewhat answered somewhere in there.

With regards to some of the comparisons above eg. the Octavia Diesel to Petrol VRS.

People seem to compare the same size diesel to the same size petrol when looking at fuel economy, but really they should be looking at the performance, which doesn't read wright to me.

The diesel VRS may have better fuel economy but the petrol has better performance.

In my view for cars with equil performance petrol/diesel, the diesel economic advantage is marginal unless you do significant milage, and lets not forget that diesel is taxed 6c a liter less than petrol even though per liter burned puts out more CO2, so that could be another way for the government to recoup some lost revenue if they want in November, although with the recent dramatic increase diesel prices that move would be create alot of disgruntled voters.

vectra

conneem-TT wrote: »

The question has been somewhat answered somewhere in there.
With regards to some of the comparisons above eg. the Octavia Diesel to Petrol VRS.
People seem to compare the same size diesel to the same size petrol when looking at fuel economy, but really they should be looking at the performance, which doesn't read wright to me.

Isnt that exactly what E92 criticised one of my previous posts on?
i compared a 1.8 petrol to a 1.4 diesel?
Then he went on about 3 liter BMW's ??
I was making a more acceptable comparision there

conneem-TT wrote: »

The diesel VRS may have better fuel economy but the petrol has better performance.

Exactly how much better performance?

by getting to 60mph maybe a second sooner?

By being able to do 9mph more?

Where are the economics in having petrol there ?

Where can you benefit from the 9mph more anyway?
Motorway speds here are 120Kph.

Put both octavia's on cruise control and check them after an identical run.
Absolute rubbish in thinking the petrol will be as cheap or any better because it will rev out to 7 or 8 k :rolleyes:

conneem-TT

vectra wrote: »

Isnt that exactly what E92 criticised one of my previous posts on?
i compared a 1.8 petrol to a 1.4 diesel?
Then he went on about 3 liter BMW's ??
I was making a more acceptable comparision there




Exactly how much better performance?

by getting to 60mph maybe a second sooner?

By being able to do 9mph more?

Where are the economics in having petrol there ?

Where can you benefit from the 9mph more anyway?
Motorway speds here are 120Kph.

Put both octavia's on cruise control and check them after an identical run.
Absolute rubbish in thinking the petrol will be as cheap or any better because it will rev out to 7 or 8 k :rolleyes:

But the 1.8 Zetec(122hp) had 50% more power than your 3 cylinder 1.4TDi(80hp) and similar torque but that is to be expected with a turbo, the Modeo was also 3 seconds quicker to 60 which is a significant difference.

It's not that you will use this extra bit of maximum performance, it is the fact that the car will accelerate more easily even in normal circumstances.

It takes alot to have a 9mph higher top speed, I know not relevant to Irish roads but the TDi VRS takes ~21s to get from 0-160km/h where the petrol VRS will do it in ~17s.

But going by your logic why would you get the VRS TDi the 140hp TDi should suffice.

vectra

conneem-TT wrote: »

But the 1.8 Zetec(122hp) had 50% more power than your 3 cylinder 1.4TDi(80hp) and similar torque but that is to be expected with a turbo, the Modeo was also 3 seconds quicker to 60 which is a significant difference.

It's not that you will use this extra bit of maximum performance, it is the fact that the car will accelerate more easily even in normal circumstances.

It takes alot to have a 9mph higher top speed, I know not relevant to Irish roads but the TDi VRS takes ~21s to get from 0-160km/h where the petrol VRS will do it in ~17s.

But going by your logic why would you get the VRS TDi the 140hp TDi should suffice.

Everything there in your answer reads nothing to do with the original Question?

Is diesel now a waste of time?

Why would i buy a VRs TDi over a 140 TDi.

Talk about comparing a Roast potato to a stickof Brocalli :rolleyes:

conneem-TT

The original question was, is diesel now a waste of time.

You gave your argument for diesel with the savings you made every week by comparing it to a petrol engine with 50% more power, I don't think that is logical.

What I said is that if the diesel car in question is matched pretty closely performance wise to its petrol rival the difference in fuel economy only becomes an advantage in higher milage situations.

vectra

conneem-TT wrote: »

The original question was, is diesel now a waste of time.

You gave your argument for diesel with the savings you made every week by comparing it to a petrol engine with 50% more power, I don't think that is logical.

What I said is that if the diesel car in question is matched pretty closely performance wise to its petrol rival the difference in fuel economy only becomes an advantage in higher milage situations.

OK,
I based it on my findings when I changed.
BUT
If you want to be nitpicking then compare it (mondeo 0 with something along the lins of a TDCi Mondeo 1.8.
Which would you think comes out more economical ? :rolleyes:

WHITE_P

This arguement is really getting old, (yawn). I drive both petrol and diesel vehicles regularly and as has been pointed out numerous times here, the torque advantage of a modern turbo diesel is far more relevant to real world driving than any BHP / higher rev's advantage a petrol engine may have. As for the petrol sounds nicer, what a load of old bullsh!t that is. My last old shape D4D landcruiser sounded great when being driven hard along a country road, the current one is alot quieter though.

You can debate the economy and CO2 arguement till the cows come home, the fact is that most manufacturer's are making improvements all the time in respect to both these issues, with petrol and diesel engines.

WHITE_P

I can just hear the arguements now.

My horse farts less than your's and sounds nicer at full trot.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080630.009/mini1/roush-makes-horse-training-vehicle

vectra

WHITE_P wrote: »

I can just hear the arguements now.

My horse farts less than your's and sounds nicer at full trot.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080630.009/mini1/roush-makes-horse-training-vehicle

Mother of god..!! :eek:

WHITE_P

vectra wrote: »

Mother of god..!! :eek:

Yeah I think you summed that one up alright.

BlackWizard

1hp?

3l/100km water

peasant

WHITE_P wrote: »

I can just hear the arguements now.

My horse farts less than your's and sounds nicer at full trot.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080630.009/mini1/roush-makes-horse-training-vehicle

That thing actually has a diesel engine

The Kurt equine trainer is powered by a Volvo 2.4-liter, five-cylinder diesel engine, automatic gearbox and equipped with computerised heart, blood, oxygen and fitness monitors, electronically controlled reins and a range of precision hydraulically controlled accessories, such as a silicone saddle to simulate jockey weights.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080630.009/roush-makes-horse-training-vehicle

WHITE_P

peasant wrote: »

That thing actually has a diesel engine


http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080630.009/roush-makes-horse-training-vehicle

Well there you go, even the horse needs a diesel engine.

E92

Next year's 330d will be available with a Blue Performance option, which will make it the world's first Euro 6 diesel.

It will be as good as a Euro 4 petrol on NOx, which is a big improvement on the current limit which is more than 3 times higher. Still 33% higher than a Euro 5 petrol, which is what the new 7 series petrols are and what next year's 3 series petrols will be.

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

E92, no offence, but you really dont seem to have driven anything really fast or at least for enough time to get a good feel on what gobs of BHP and torque bring to the table. I know your car well as my uncle drives one and swears by it, almost irrationally so. Its classy and has a real nice sound. However its painfully dieing for torque given its heavy weight.

My 6speed Manual 440BHP S4 was lots of fun to drive. It revved fast, minimal turbo lag, Milltek exhaust growl and the twin K04 turbos literally audibly howled under boost. However it was the fat torque band (over 400ft/lbs) that made it so much fun. Im not saying I never (or couldnt or wouldnt) dropped gears, but it was FUN to cruise like a stealth fighter in 4th then floor it and be rocketed away. More fun to see the next guy lurch backwards when dropping down.

Gear munching was when traffic-light-drag-racing and a low down, fat torque band meant you spent more time accelerating than clutching. You dont have to be doing something with your left hand and foot to get a big smile you know.

Matt, the E34 520i is as you know from having driven one, not fast at all. I would never claim it was. But what I will stand over 100% is that it is as smooth as silk and it makes a great noise when extended, and loves to be revved too. It does need to be worked hard to get the most out of it, but that's why it's got a gearbox and an accelerator pedal for:D!

You're right that I've never driven anything properly fast. But I have travelled in cars with over 350 bhp often enough and long enough to appreciate that those engines will pull almost idle even in very high gears with the bare minimum of fuss.

My point is not that torque is unimportant, but rather completely over hyped and not a substitute for bhp. A 130 bhp diesel car is no faster than a 130 bhp petrol car on the whole, because yes you can use the diesel torque at low revbs but when you try and push on in a petrol you can get it up to the upper reaches of the rev counter and get access to those ponies that are there. It is something that should complement it so that the engine isn't completely useless at low revs, but even small petrols make some bit of an effort to try and get a shift on after 2,000 rpm. After all power and torque are related, you can't have one without the other. I find petrols have enough torque for everyday usage. If I need performance from my petrol engine, a quick gear change and putting the foot the whole down sorts things out. Yes with a diesel all you need do is put the foot down but they run out of steam pretty quickly so you end up having to change up anyway.

Matt Simis

E92, kudos on reply that didnt fling mud (despite my possibly argumentative post directed at you) and explained your view perfectly.

I have only driven one fast diesel (my own), but messing around on the way home there, it simply doesnt operate like the family wagon "brandx" diesel engine you describe. It happily drops gears, sometimes two, just like a petrol, to maximise torque and acceleration. In Sport mode it will rev and hold well over 4k rpm. It also puts out over 350BHP. It basically performs like a sporty petrol engine with benefit of the stupid amounts of torque. Torque in this car, and I expand this to the 335D, Audi V12 etc based on reviews, isnt a kludgey replacement for good gear work, it dramatically expands the driving experience and used the gears in a similar fashion to the cars you know and love.

I wholely agree with your point on economy focused diesels however.

E92

Appreciate your reply Matt.

I'm sure bigger diesels are a much more pleasant driving experience than the cooking models as well. Similarly, I'm sure that larger petrols don't suffer the dearth of torque you describe from the cooking models either. But then again, they're more expensive to buy and run so of course they should be better than a smaller engine to drive. There's only so much that can be done with any given engine size. When I was making the case for petrol power, I'm talking about the kind of engines most ordinary people can either drive, afford or want to drive. The things you say about bigger diesels and petrols I don't doubt for a moment, as it's perfectly obvious from some of your other posts that what you don't know about cars wouldn't fill a postage stamp, but unfortunately these are experiences few of us will ever be fortunate enough to experience.

There's no replacement for displacement though:D!(or turbos!)

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

It happily drops gears, sometimes two, just like a petrol, to maximise torque

You sure you don't mean power? Any automatic petrol will drop gear to land the engine around peak power, which is usually quite a bit higher than peak torque.

(Myself and matt have been discussing amicably how he cut me up in a massive cloud of torque and heavy particlates at the main roundabout going into Liffey Valley yesterday)

vectra

E92 wrote: »

Matt, the E34 520i is as you know from having driven one, not fast at all. I would never claim it was. But what I will stand over 100% is that it is as smooth as silk and it makes a great noise when extended, and loves to be revved too. It does need to be worked hard to get the most out of it, but that's why it's got a gearbox and an accelerator pedal for:D!

Seems to me that the BMW engine is as lazy as it always was.
Maybe even as soft as well ( in the right hands )
I had an E12 in my younger days and man was that thing lazy.

Should have been better with the size of the Carb on the thing :eek:

Didnt take much hardship to make the pistons go oval shaped

OH
What a petrol guzzler
Couldnt get any more than 12mpg mixed driving.
Buddy of mine had a 635 at the time and he found the same. Drank the petrol

dizzydiesel

E92 wrote: »

When you're ready to deal in reality, I'll answer you, but I'm not a member of this forum to deal with insults, piss takes and a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

I only bothered responding this time because you're new to the forum but I'm not responding to any further bull you will post.

What's the "says who" all about? I'm saying it because I know it!
I've got a VW 1.9TDI engine...gets 60mpg all the time. Not my fault BMW aren't as fuel efficient with their unit.
I used 60mpg as a benchmark that I have measured personally. Also, 60mpg is quite easy to achieve if you don't overtake too much. But if you really push it and drive like an old woman, you can get 63 or 64mpg. But it's hard work to get that figure.

I'll use my own figures and not the factory "claims". And I'm deadly serious about the 60mpg at 80mph........petrol cannot get anywhere near that.

What is 60/50.4? 19%.....What??
37.7mpg versus 60mpg is 60% less fuel economy than diesel.

I love cars, there's nothing like the roar of a big petrol engine, the diesel doesn't have the same feeling.......I conceed that. But we live in the real world where petrol and diesel cost 1.40 per litre.....hence my arguement that diesel is better. The performance is almost matched, and economy is a mismatch. I'll again quote my 40-60% figure. Even if 60% is top end, it's still reality when at motorway speed.

I'm not putting you in the class with the boy racers, but if you have a powerful car, theres no need to drive around on the red line! If you did that, you'd be stopping at the petrol stations probably 3 times as often as me.

BMW is a quality car, reliable German engineering, however, I have to generalize that most petrol cars are dead at 170k miles. A quality BMW engine of course should be bullet proof and outlive some of it's french and Italian rivals. (Peugeot, Fiat, Alfa, Citreon)

I'm not understanding your torque arguement. Buses and trucks are slow because they are heavy. Also, most trucks only have 340bhp.....but the torque pulls them along. Try put a petrol engine in a truck....watch it die. I fear that the truck drivers would have gone on strike years ago due to "souring running costs". They would need to re-fill at every fuel station. €700 each time.
Torque is great.....foot down in any gear and you can overtake.....no need to kick-down to find the power.

90% of your driving time, you are only cruising or getting up to speed. How often do you get the full power from the engine? Not often.....just when you need to overtake quickly or accelerate quickly. The rest of the time the engine is only using a fraction of its power. It's nice to have the power when you need it, sure, but it's a high price to pay for fractional improvement of performance.

I'm not "piss taking", and I didn't insult you. This is my view, don't dismiss it. I respect your opinion....don't ridicule mine.

JHMEG

dizzydiesel wrote: »

I've got a VW 1.9TDI engine...gets 60mpg all the time.

That's impressive. What car is this engine in? What version of that engine is it?

Marcus.Aurelius

My housemate relates to me that he gets 60 mpg from his 2002 130 bhp TDI VW Boring, and I would believe him, but a sad price to pay for the mpgs.

dizzydiesel

JHMEG wrote: »

That's impressive. What car is this engine in? What version of that engine is it?

Seat Toledo 2001 110bhp.........and it's usually loaded with tools so it's not light. Most of my driving is on motorway.