Discussion:
Diesels
(too old to reply)
Marvin
2006-11-04 23:53:27 UTC
Permalink
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.

Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
SteveH
2006-11-04 23:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
I thought that when I first got mine - I was driving it like a cunt
everywhere and turning in mid-30s mpg.

I've now calmed down a bit - driving it more like I usually drive my
cars, and economy has gone up to mid-40s mpg.

My last couple of petrol cars, driven the same way, were turning in less
than 30mpg.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
DervMan
2006-11-05 07:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveH
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
I thought that when I first got mine - I was driving it like a cunt
everywhere and turning in mid-30s mpg.
I've now calmed down a bit - driving it more like I usually drive my
cars, and economy has gone up to mid-40s mpg.
My last couple of petrol cars, driven the same way, were turning in less
than 30mpg.
So pretty much exactly as I was saying when you first got it and you were
slating it for its poor fuel consumption?

"When or if you calm down, you'll get much better fuel consumption."
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Guy King
2006-11-05 09:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveH
I've now calmed down a bit - driving it more like I usually drive my
cars, and economy has gone up to mid-40s mpg.
Till the autobox died I was getting that from a tonne and half of 2.5
Audi diesel. I have yet to see what I get from the 1.8 TD Mundane I
bought yesterday to replace it.

How much is a clutch on a Mundane?
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
DervMan
2006-11-05 09:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by SteveH
I've now calmed down a bit - driving it more like I usually drive my
cars, and economy has gone up to mid-40s mpg.
Till the autobox died I was getting that from a tonne and half of 2.5
Audi diesel.
Yes, but then you two probably have wildly different driving styles.
Vehicle weights will be similar, and you don't specify the age of the Audi.
If it's older than the 2005 model there's a good chance it won't have
anything like as much as the emissions gubbins.
Post by Guy King
I have yet to see what I get from the 1.8 TD Mundane I
bought yesterday to replace it.
Mine struggled to return outside of the 40 to 50 point, so, I guess about
the same.

Over similar driving the Saab is slightly more economical, say, it'll be
returning 48 - 50 whereas the Mondeo would have been returning 43 to 46.
Post by Guy King
How much is a clutch on a Mundane?
A lot to have it done for you...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Guy King
2006-11-05 17:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Vehicle weights will be similar, and you don't specify the age of the Audi.
If it's older than the 2005 model there's a good chance it won't have
anything like as much as the emissions gubbins.
'93 and it's got a cat.
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
DervMan
2006-11-05 17:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by DervMan
Vehicle weights will be similar, and you don't specify the age of the Audi.
If it's older than the 2005 model there's a good chance it won't have
anything like as much as the emissions gubbins.
'93 and it's got a cat.
Yes, but it won't have anything like the restrictive emissions funkiness
that modern stuff has on it now (I was going to write, "crap" but y'all know
what I mean)...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
j***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-11-05 00:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.

Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.

That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Post by Marvin
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
See above.
--
JackH
johannes
2006-11-05 13:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels, require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
See above.
--
JackH
DervMan
2006-11-05 13:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by johannes
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels,
Part of this is associated with the car of course rather than just the
engine. Some modern diesels are quieter than their petrol cousins.
Post by johannes
require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
Yes and where's the fun in this?
Post by johannes
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Both engines have development in the pipeline. A similar generation diesel
will be more economical than the weany rev-the-nuts-off-it petrol donk, heh.
:-p
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
johannes
2006-11-05 14:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels,
Part of this is associated with the car of course rather than just the
engine. Some modern diesels are quieter than their petrol cousins.
But you can always hear when someone is starting up a diesel car, even
modern diesels which are supposed to be quieter. Only the top end BMW
and Merc are reasonable quiet.
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
Yes and where's the fun in this?
Post by johannes
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Both engines have development in the pipeline. A similar generation diesel
will be more economical than the weany rev-the-nuts-off-it petrol donk, heh.
:-p
There is a trend of turbo petrol cars for drievability and economy rather
than outright tarmac burning performance. E.g. Saab and now more extreme
in the VW TSI. Hence much the same relaxed driving properties as diesels.
DervMan
2006-11-05 14:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by johannes
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels,
Part of this is associated with the car of course rather than just the
engine. Some modern diesels are quieter than their petrol cousins.
But you can always hear when someone is starting up a diesel car, even
modern diesels which are supposed to be quieter. Only the top end BMW
and Merc are reasonable quiet.
Noise outside the car is not relevant. As for this "reasonably quiet"
argument, that's nonsense. There are a bunch of old cars where on the
motorway you can't tell what the donk is.
Post by johannes
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
Yes and where's the fun in this?
Post by johannes
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Both engines have development in the pipeline. A similar generation diesel
will be more economical than the weany rev-the-nuts-off-it petrol donk, heh.
:-p
There is a trend of turbo petrol cars for drievability and economy rather
than outright tarmac burning performance. E.g. Saab and now more extreme
in the VW TSI. Hence much the same relaxed driving properties as diesels.
To a degree, yes, but there's a huge amount of stigma attacked to the
perception of small engines and relatively large cars. Ford for example
produced a prototype lightweight Mondeo with a 1.25 Zetec-SE engine, but
figured people won't want a 1.25 litre Mondeo.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
johannes
2006-11-05 17:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels,
Part of this is associated with the car of course rather than just the
engine. Some modern diesels are quieter than their petrol cousins.
But you can always hear when someone is starting up a diesel car, even
modern diesels which are supposed to be quieter. Only the top end BMW
and Merc are reasonable quiet.
Noise outside the car is not relevant. As for this "reasonably quiet"
argument, that's nonsense. There are a bunch of old cars where on the
motorway you can't tell what the donk is.
Post by johannes
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
Yes and where's the fun in this?
Post by johannes
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Both engines have development in the pipeline. A similar generation diesel
will be more economical than the weany rev-the-nuts-off-it petrol donk, heh.
:-p
There is a trend of turbo petrol cars for drievability and economy rather
than outright tarmac burning performance. E.g. Saab and now more extreme
in the VW TSI. Hence much the same relaxed driving properties as diesels.
To a degree, yes, but there's a huge amount of stigma attacked to the
perception of small engines and relatively large cars. Ford for example
produced a prototype lightweight Mondeo with a 1.25 Zetec-SE engine, but
figured people won't want a 1.25 litre Mondeo.
Saab developed a 'relaxed' 1.6L 225bhp engine with variable compression
ratio, eliminating the necessity of a constant low CR to accommodate peak
turbo power, hence maintaining efficiency at low loads. However, the
project was shelved by GM.
Billy H
2006-11-06 17:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by johannes
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels,
Part of this is associated with the car of course rather than just the
engine. Some modern diesels are quieter than their petrol cousins.
But you can always hear when someone is starting up a diesel car, even
modern diesels which are supposed to be quieter. Only the top end BMW
and Merc are reasonable quiet.
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
Yes and where's the fun in this?
Post by johannes
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Both engines have development in the pipeline. A similar generation diesel
will be more economical than the weany rev-the-nuts-off-it petrol donk, heh.
:-p
There is a trend of turbo petrol cars for drievability and economy rather
than outright tarmac burning performance. E.g. Saab and now more extreme
in the VW TSI. Hence much the same relaxed driving properties as diesels.
So what's the word on the longevity iof modern dervs v unleaded's??

The derv must still have a heavier engine, or are they increasing the weight
of the petrol engine components for competition purposes??


Are the petrol's competitive uphill?


--
Billy H
johannes
2006-11-06 20:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billy H
Post by johannes
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
Post by j***@yahoo.co.uk
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Hardly silly.
Or to put it another way, I rarely drop below 50mpg in my Golf TDI, and
that's been chipped / will see off plenty of petrol equivalents, yet
these would need to be doing at least 45mpg to be on par at current
fuel prices.
That aside, I prefer the way it drives compared to a petrol - relaxing
power delivery etc.
Petrol engines are also developing, e.g. VW TSI engine. Also the planned
Fiat T-Jet engines 1.4L 150bhp. Petrol engines are more refined than
diesels,
Part of this is associated with the car of course rather than just the
engine. Some modern diesels are quieter than their petrol cousins.
But you can always hear when someone is starting up a diesel car, even
modern diesels which are supposed to be quieter. Only the top end BMW
and Merc are reasonable quiet.
Post by DervMan
Post by johannes
require less oil change and don't produce particulate smoke.
Yes and where's the fun in this?
Post by johannes
A test of of Citroen C1 1.0 petrol with 1.4 Diesel model showed same
economy ~61mpg with the petrol having an edge on performance. It will
be an interesting battle ahead.
Both engines have development in the pipeline. A similar generation diesel
will be more economical than the weany rev-the-nuts-off-it petrol donk, heh.
:-p
There is a trend of turbo petrol cars for drievability and economy rather
than outright tarmac burning performance. E.g. Saab and now more extreme
in the VW TSI. Hence much the same relaxed driving properties as diesels.
So what's the word on the longevity iof modern dervs v unleaded's??
The derv must still have a heavier engine, or are they increasing the weight
of the petrol engine components for competition purposes??
Are the petrol's competitive uphill?
Dunno, but many expect a modern petrol engine to last at least 200,000
miles, plus or minus depending on TLC. Modern oils and better metallurgy
have extended engine life. My 1993 Saab has done 125,000 miles and still
doesn't use engine oil between changes, still smooth an quiet. The low
pressure turbo helps keeping engine revs down.
Ivan
2006-11-05 00:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
A couple of months ago I asked on his newsgroup about what car I should buy
to replace my ageing Astra diesel estate.

A number of people suggested I could do a lot worse than the Ford focus, so
I wound up with an 02 reg 1.8 TDCI diesel estate, and although I am still
getting used to it I have to admit that so far been very impressed by both
the performance and mpg.
Conor
2006-11-05 01:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
Yup. Run em on chip fat.
--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
Zozzer
2006-11-05 09:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conor
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
Yup. Run em on chip fat.
--
Conor
Lol, Chuckle Chuckle, your a safer bet than lottery Conor.

Pity Ladrookes weren't taking bets on who would be the first to
post that little gem. I'd have made a mint.

I can imagine you calling in the chippy.....

Fish n Chips please.... and while I'm here stick a couple of gallon
of fat in the tank.

Argh!! my jaw is aiching I'm laughinmg that much.

--
Zozzer
DervMan
2006-11-05 07:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
Post by Marvin
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
All fuel prices look silly. Some just marginally more silly than others.
Post by Marvin
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
Yes, with a caveat that it depends on your mileage. If you cover 5,000
miles a year it's almost certainly not worth it. 10,000 miles, maybe not
either.

My 20,000 miles a year means it is borderline to run a diesel or not. As it
happens I opted for diesel for a bunch of reasons, one of these being lower
fuel bills. I also prefer the noise and, more normal, the way it drives and
less frequent fuel stops. Add to this mix the lower insurance costs and I'm
set.

I was considering one of the small capacity, small car turbodiesels (think:
Yaris 1.4 DI-D, Fiesta 1.4 TDCi, Peugeot 206 1.4 HDi) for their silly low
fuel consumption but didn't in the end because their high purchase price
would take years to make up compared to a mid-range petrol model at my
mileage.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Paul Hubbard
2006-11-05 08:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead
of a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound
too much of a compromise.
Agreed, my Nissan 2.2dci at136ps is now giving around the 50mpg mark, the
old 25 in the garage with the L series lump has been known to get up to
70mpg with a light foot.
Post by DervMan
All fuel prices look silly. Some just marginally more silly than others.
I did once roughly work out that based on the relative differences between
diesel and petrol, there would need to be at least a 10p per litre
difference before the merits of diesel were cancelled out. That was 6 years
ago when I took my first diesel so what it is now with newer technology?
Post by DervMan
My 20,000 miles a year means it is borderline to run a diesel or not. As
it happens I opted for diesel for a bunch of reasons, one of these being
lower fuel bills. I also prefer the noise and, more normal, the way it
drives and less frequent fuel stops. Add to this mix the lower insurance
costs and I'm set.
Agreed, the power delivery when needed is good, add to that the technology
tricks such as uprated ECU design, variable vane turbo, common rail etc., it
has never been a better time to drive a diesel. I'm also aware that
research shows that emissons from a diesel reman constant throughout it's
life, whereas the petrol engine emissons get worse with age, far worse than
a diesel in fact. Add to that that a diesel will run on just about any
combustable heavy oil (bio) unlike petrol, I'm sold.

PDH
DervMan
2006-11-05 09:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Hubbard
Post by DervMan
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead
of a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't
sound too much of a compromise.
Agreed, my Nissan 2.2dci at136ps is now giving around the 50mpg mark, the
old 25 in the garage with the L series lump has been known to get up to
70mpg with a light foot.
Yes. If the emissions nonsense :) was removed from the Isuzu / General
Motors 2.2 donk under the Saab's bonnet it'd be recording better fuel
consumption figures.
Post by Paul Hubbard
Post by DervMan
All fuel prices look silly. Some just marginally more silly than others.
I did once roughly work out that based on the relative differences between
diesel and petrol, there would need to be at least a 10p per litre
difference before the merits of diesel were cancelled out. That was 6
years ago when I took my first diesel so what it is now with newer
technology?
Possibly not much different if you mean fuel consumption. New diesel
technology has mostly been about maintaining the fuel efficiency but making
'em quieter and faster... :) Some diesel merits are hard to quantify in
currency terms. Being able to turn up the boost, over-fuel and leave people
gasping for breath in a cloud of particulates is priceless. :-p
Post by Paul Hubbard
Post by DervMan
My 20,000 miles a year means it is borderline to run a diesel or not. As
it happens I opted for diesel for a bunch of reasons, one of these being
lower fuel bills. I also prefer the noise and, more normal, the way it
drives and less frequent fuel stops. Add to this mix the lower insurance
costs and I'm set.
Agreed, the power delivery when needed is good, add to that the technology
tricks such as uprated ECU design, variable vane turbo, common rail etc.,
it has never been a better time to drive a diesel.
Hmm. With the exception of a variable geometry turbocharger, the rest of it
the above developments don't materially change how the donk feels to drive,
merely other funkiness like noise, efficiency and rattling. Balancer shafts
are useful things, improved noise insulation, "smart" engine mounts, that
sort of thing.
Post by Paul Hubbard
I'm also aware that research shows that emissons from a diesel reman
constant throughout it's life, whereas the petrol engine emissons get
worse with age, far worse than a diesel in fact.
Heh. I find that refusing to argue with tree-hugging, anti-diesel
protestors is more frustrating for them than actually arguing!
Post by Paul Hubbard
Add to that that a diesel will run on just about any combustable heavy oil
(bio) unlike petrol, I'm sold.
Careful: some will, some won't. Some are tolerant of a proportion of
biodiesel and some sulk and stop working...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Paul Hubbard
2006-11-05 11:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Careful: some will, some won't. Some are tolerant of a proportion of
biodiesel and some sulk and stop working...
Reminds me of the great Yellowstone park trick, running the tour busses on
oil from the Kentucky. They were seeing a hell of a lot more bears while
they were using it.

PDH
Conor
2006-11-05 10:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.

Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
DervMan
2006-11-05 12:46:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number of
cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker and
more economical! ;)

How about:

1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.

1983 Saab 900 Turbo, 123 mph, 8.9 seconds to 60 and ~25 mpg.
2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T, 137 mph, 8.0 seconds to 62 and ~36 mpg.

That's the 175 bhp 2.0 turbo engine and not the 2.0 Aero. The "1.8t" (150
bhp 2.0 turbo) 9-3 manages 131 mph, 9.0 seconds to 62 mph and 37 mpg. It's
as quick (8.9 seconds to 60, 9.0 seconds to 62, close enough).

1983 BMW 323i, 125 mph, 8.1 seconds to 60 and ~31 mpg.
2007 BMW 3-Series with the 2.2 I6 engine. 140 mph, 7.7s to 62 mph and ~32
mpg.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Marvin
2006-11-05 13:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number of
cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker and
more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
DervMan
2006-11-05 13:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number
of cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker
and more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
What dribble is this on your chin?

A vehicle's 0-62 time is academic for the vast majority of people, most of
the time. Imbiciles who like burning out their clutches may quibble that
one car takes a claimed 8.9 seconds and another takes 9.0 seconds.

How long do you think a modern bus takes to get to 62? Or a long haul
train? Or an airliner? Or an unladen and de-restricted HGV?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Marvin
2006-11-05 13:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number
of cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker
and more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
What dribble is this on your chin?
A vehicle's 0-62 time is academic for the vast majority of people, most of
the time. Imbiciles who like burning out their clutches may quibble that
one car takes a claimed 8.9 seconds and another takes 9.0 seconds.
How long do you think a modern bus takes to get to 62? Or a long haul
train? Or an airliner? Or an unladen and de-restricted HGV?
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of
acceleration is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
Chris Bartram
2006-11-05 14:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
What dribble is this on your chin?
A vehicle's 0-62 time is academic for the vast majority of people,
most of the time. Imbiciles who like burning out their clutches may
quibble that one car takes a claimed 8.9 seconds and another takes 9.0
seconds.
How long do you think a modern bus takes to get to 62? Or a long haul
train? Or an airliner? Or an unladen and de-restricted HGV?
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of
acceleration is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
No-one in their right mind would buy a Golf SDi for performance. In
fact, IMO no-one in their right mind would buy an SDi when the TDi exists.
DervMan
2006-11-05 14:41:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
What dribble is this on your chin?
A vehicle's 0-62 time is academic for the vast majority of people, most
of the time. Imbiciles who like burning out their clutches may quibble
that one car takes a claimed 8.9 seconds and another takes 9.0 seconds.
How long do you think a modern bus takes to get to 62? Or a long haul
train? Or an airliner? Or an unladen and de-restricted HGV?
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of
acceleration is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
No-one in their right mind would buy a Golf SDi for performance. In fact,
IMO no-one in their right mind would buy an SDi when the TDi exists.
It's there as an entry level to the range and so that VW can charge more for
the TDI.

Note that VAG use a capital "I" at the end of the SD or TD heh...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
DervMan
2006-11-05 14:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number
of cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both
quicker and more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60
in 17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
What dribble is this on your chin?
A vehicle's 0-62 time is academic for the vast majority of people, most
of the time. Imbiciles who like burning out their clutches may quibble
that one car takes a claimed 8.9 seconds and another takes 9.0 seconds.
How long do you think a modern bus takes to get to 62? Or a long haul
train? Or an airliner? Or an unladen and de-restricted HGV?
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of acceleration
is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
One, in-gear acceleration is different to off the line acceleration. Two,
if the driver is unable to effect a safe overtake in a low powered car, they
should hand in their driving licence.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Morse
2006-11-05 15:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of acceleration
is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
I agree it does seem dire, but 0-60 times merely indicate the time to 60mph
from a standing start. Do you make a habit of overtaking from a standing
start? ;-)

A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much faster on
the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually moving is quite
impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8 TDDI which didn't have an
impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8 secs IIRC, and it always had plenty
of grunt for overtaking.

Morse
Marvin
2006-11-05 16:59:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morse
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of acceleration
is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
I agree it does seem dire, but 0-60 times merely indicate the time to 60mph
from a standing start. Do you make a habit of overtaking from a standing
start? ;-)
A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much faster on
the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually moving is quite
impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8 TDDI which didn't have an
impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8 secs IIRC, and it always had plenty
of grunt for overtaking.
Morse
True, but if you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights you need a
reasonable 0-62
Marvin
2006-11-05 16:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morse
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of acceleration
is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
I agree it does seem dire, but 0-60 times merely indicate the time to 60mph
from a standing start. Do you make a habit of overtaking from a standing
start? ;-)
A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much faster on
the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually moving is quite
impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8 TDDI which didn't have an
impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8 secs IIRC, and it always had plenty
of grunt for overtaking.
Morse
True, but if you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights you need a
reasonable 0-62
DervMan
2006-11-05 17:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by Morse
Post by Marvin
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of
acceleration is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
I agree it does seem dire, but 0-60 times merely indicate the time to
60mph from a standing start. Do you make a habit of overtaking from a
standing start? ;-)
A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much faster
on the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually moving is
quite impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8 TDDI which didn't
have an impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8 secs IIRC, and it always
had plenty of grunt for overtaking.
Morse
True, but if you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights you need a
reasonable 0-62
Why would you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights?

Any Muppet can accelerate quickly in a straight line.

Get yourself on a trackday.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Marvin
2006-11-05 23:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
Post by Morse
Post by Marvin
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of
acceleration is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
I agree it does seem dire, but 0-60 times merely indicate the time to
60mph from a standing start. Do you make a habit of overtaking from a
standing start? ;-)
A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much faster
on the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually moving is
quite impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8 TDDI which didn't
have an impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8 secs IIRC, and it always
had plenty of grunt for overtaking.
Morse
True, but if you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights you need a
reasonable 0-62
Why would you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights?
Any Muppet can accelerate quickly in a straight line.
Get yourself on a trackday.
No if two muppets try to out accelerate each other away from the lights
the ones that isnt in the 16.7sec 0-62 mobile is going to have the smile
on his face. ;)
Douglas Payne
2006-11-06 13:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
Post by Morse
Post by Marvin
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of
acceleration is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
I agree it does seem dire, but 0-60 times merely indicate the time
to 60mph from a standing start. Do you make a habit of overtaking
from a standing start? ;-)
A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much
faster on the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually
moving is quite impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8
TDDI which didn't have an impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8
secs IIRC, and it always had plenty of grunt for overtaking.
Morse
True, but if you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights you need a
reasonable 0-62
Why would you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights?
Any Muppet can accelerate quickly in a straight line.
Get yourself on a trackday.
No if two muppets try to out accelerate each other away from the lights
the ones that isnt in the 16.7sec 0-62 mobile is going to have the smile
on his face. ;)
How long does a 2cv take to get to 60mph? In your race from the lights,
I think the car with the 16.7seconds 0-60 time would probably win. I'm
not sure if either driver would be smiling or not.

What was your point again?
--
Douglas
Adrian
2006-11-06 13:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
How long does a 2cv take to get to 60mph?
Official figure was about 29sec...
Billy H
2006-11-06 17:03:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Douglas Payne
How long does a 2cv take to get to 60mph?
Official figure was about 29sec...
by which time the lights have changed
David R
2006-11-06 23:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by Morse
A 1.4 Fiesta TDCI has a 0-60 time of 15 seconds, but it feels much faster
on the road and overtakes with ease. Its pull while actually moving is
quite impressive for a small diesel. I had a Focus 1.8 TDDI which didn't
have an impressive 0-60 time at all- about 13.8 secs IIRC, and it always
had plenty of grunt for overtaking.
Morse
True, but if you want to beat a 2CV away from the lights you need a
reasonable 0-62
That'll just be you and your wee cock that want that quick time though.
David R
2006-11-06 23:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Sorry but when you're trying to overtake another car a bit of acceleration
is quite useful. 16.7 seconds is dire.
Are you retarded Marvin? Do you often overtake cars from a stand-still? The
reason the times appear long is because it's from zero to sixty.

Try 30 to 60, see how fast you can do it. Much much quicker obviously.
Christ, some people...
Chris Whelan
2006-11-05 13:31:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number
of cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker
and more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
Especially when compared to the competition:

2007 Focus 2.0 TDCi 0-62 in 9.3s, 126mph, 50.4mpg

Chris
--
Remove prejudice to reply.
Chris Bartram
2006-11-05 14:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Whelan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
2007 Focus 2.0 TDCi 0-62 in 9.3s, 126mph, 50.4mpg
Chris
But that's not like for like. Compare the TDi golf with that focus.
Pete M
2006-11-05 14:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by Chris Whelan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
2007 Focus 2.0 TDCi 0-62 in 9.3s, 126mph, 50.4mpg
Chris
But that's not like for like. Compare the TDi golf with that focus.
Then compare the price and handling, and buy the Focus.

Mk5 Golfs are bloody awful things.
--
Pete M - Using the Scouse Side of the Force -
Range Rover Vogue EFI
Citroën Xantia SX TD
OMF#9

"Stay calm. Stay calm. I'm a relatively respectable citizen -- a multiple
felon, perhaps, but certainly not dangerous."
DervMan
2006-11-05 14:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete M
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by Chris Whelan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
2007 Focus 2.0 TDCi 0-62 in 9.3s, 126mph, 50.4mpg
Chris
But that's not like for like. Compare the TDi golf with that focus.
Then compare the price and handling, and buy the Focus.
Mk5 Golfs are bloody awful things.
They're useful if you desperately need a slash and you can't find a Subaru.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
DervMan
2006-11-05 14:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Whelan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't
sound
too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number
of cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker
and more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
2007 Focus 2.0 TDCi 0-62 in 9.3s, 126mph, 50.4mpg
What has the Focus TDCi got to do with a Golf SDI?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
PC Paul
2006-11-06 20:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
What has the Focus TDCi got to do with a Golf SDI?
Other end of the desirability scale?
DervMan
2006-11-07 20:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by PC Paul
Post by DervMan
What has the Focus TDCi got to do with a Golf SDI?
Other end of the desirability scale?
:)
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Chris Bartram
2006-11-07 21:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by PC Paul
Post by DervMan
What has the Focus TDCi got to do with a Golf SDI?
Other end of the desirability scale?
Like I said above, I can't understand why anyone would buy an SDI,
cheaper though it is. In the real world, it's not going to give you much
extra economy over the TDI, and performance is awful. I don't know why
they even bothered making it.
SteveH
2006-11-07 21:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by PC Paul
Post by DervMan
What has the Focus TDCi got to do with a Golf SDI?
Other end of the desirability scale?
Like I said above, I can't understand why anyone would buy an SDI,
cheaper though it is. In the real world, it's not going to give you much
extra economy over the TDI, and performance is awful. I don't know why
they even bothered making it.
Poverty spec fleet special for chewing gum reps.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
Tim S Kemp
2006-11-05 22:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Whelan
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top
Gear where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on
power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge
number of cases where a like for like modern model is either
quicker or more economical than a near 25 year old example.
Sometimes it's both quicker and more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh.
0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
16.7 seconds is pathetic for a car of today.
2007 Focus 2.0 TDCi 0-62 in 9.3s, 126mph, 50.4mpg
Chris
Or the Mercedes C320cdi - 0-62 6.9s, top speed 155mph, 47.9mpg. Just as
irrelevant.
--
The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel
with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Conor
2006-11-06 15:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Yes but it isn't _quite_ this simple.
Post by Conor
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
That's one example, though - and often quoted. There are a huge number of
cases where a like for like modern model is either quicker or more
economical than a near 25 year old example. Sometimes it's both quicker and
more economical! ;)
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh. 0-60 in
17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
1983 Saab 900 Turbo, 123 mph, 8.9 seconds to 60 and ~25 mpg.
2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T, 137 mph, 8.0 seconds to 62 and ~36 mpg.
That's the 175 bhp 2.0 turbo engine and not the 2.0 Aero. The "1.8t" (150
bhp 2.0 turbo) 9-3 manages 131 mph, 9.0 seconds to 62 mph and 37 mpg. It's
as quick (8.9 seconds to 60, 9.0 seconds to 62, close enough).
1983 BMW 323i, 125 mph, 8.1 seconds to 60 and ~31 mpg.
2007 BMW 3-Series with the 2.2 I6 engine. 140 mph, 7.7s to 62 mph and ~32
mpg.
More meaningful if you showed the respective BHP ratings.
--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm
Adrian
2006-11-06 16:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh.
0-60 in 17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
1983 Saab 900 Turbo, 123 mph, 8.9 seconds to 60 and ~25 mpg.
2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T, 137 mph, 8.0 seconds to 62 and ~36 mpg.
That's the 175 bhp 2.0 turbo engine and not the 2.0 Aero. The "1.8t"
(150 bhp 2.0 turbo) 9-3 manages 131 mph, 9.0 seconds to 62 mph and 37
mpg. It's as quick (8.9 seconds to 60, 9.0 seconds to 62, close
enough).
1983 BMW 323i, 125 mph, 8.1 seconds to 60 and ~31 mpg.
2007 BMW 3-Series with the 2.2 I6 engine. 140 mph, 7.7s to 62 mph
and ~32 mpg.
More meaningful if you showed the respective BHP ratings.
'83 Golf 1.5d - 48bhp, 850kg
'06 Golf SDi - 73bhp, 1400kg

'83 900 turbo - 143bhp, 1300kg
'06 93 turbo - 175bhp, 1400kg

E21 323i - 143bhp, 1200kg
E90 320i 2.2/6 - 170bhp, 1500kg
DervMan
2006-11-07 20:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
1983 Golf 1.6 diesel. The original mark one Golf was a 1.5 heh.
0-60 in 17.2 seconds and 88mph. ~50 mpg.
2006 Golf 2.0 SDI. 0-62 in 16.7 seconds, 101 mph and ~52 mpg.
1983 Saab 900 Turbo, 123 mph, 8.9 seconds to 60 and ~25 mpg.
2007 Saab 9-3 2.0T, 137 mph, 8.0 seconds to 62 and ~36 mpg.
That's the 175 bhp 2.0 turbo engine and not the 2.0 Aero. The "1.8t"
(150 bhp 2.0 turbo) 9-3 manages 131 mph, 9.0 seconds to 62 mph and 37
mpg. It's as quick (8.9 seconds to 60, 9.0 seconds to 62, close
enough).
1983 BMW 323i, 125 mph, 8.1 seconds to 60 and ~31 mpg.
2007 BMW 3-Series with the 2.2 I6 engine. 140 mph, 7.7s to 62 mph
and ~32 mpg.
More meaningful if you showed the respective BHP ratings.
'83 Golf 1.5d - 48bhp, 850kg
'06 Golf SDi - 73bhp, 1400kg
Well I'd gone for the 1.6, but heh, what the heck.
Post by Adrian
'83 900 turbo - 143bhp, 1300kg
'06 93 turbo - 175bhp, 1400kg
E21 323i - 143bhp, 1200kg
E90 320i 2.2/6 - 170bhp, 1500kg
I don't think it's much more relevant with the engine output figures. I
could have excluded any one of the data points really...

Essentially what I was saying was that, model for model, newer stuff isn't
necessarily slower.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Marvin
2006-11-05 13:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Conor
Post by DervMan
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
To a degree this is true, however what you're saying is that now instead of
a 50 mpg 90 bhp car, we can have a 50 mpg, 130 bhp car... doesn't sound too
much of a compromise.
The only downside is that the weight of the car has gone up so that
there's no performance advantage.
Anyone remember the MK1 Golf GTI vs MK5 Golf GTI drag race on Top Gear
where the MK1 won despite being the thick end of 50% down on power?
All volkswagons are underpowered these days. Some of the smaller engines
in the Polo and Golf in particular are pathetic. I wouldnt buy one,
espesially with the price premium.
Zozzer
2006-11-05 09:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
No-one forces anyone buy high performane diesel or
to drive with lead boots on.

I'm very happy with......

55mpg from my Astra 1.9Dti Estate
30mpg from my Autosleeper Motorohome (Peugot Boxer 2.0Hdi)

I'll certainly never buy another petrol engined vehicle.

--
Zozzer
Zozzer
2006-11-05 09:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zozzer
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
No-one forces anyone buy high performane diesel or
to drive with lead boots on.
I'm very happy with......
55mpg from my Astra 1.9Dti Estate
30mpg from my Autosleeper Motorohome (Peugot Boxer 2.0Hdi)
I'll certainly never buy another petrol engined vehicle.
--
Zozzer
Oops !!! Typo Error Alert .......

My Astra is a 1.7Dti not a 1.9

Zozzer
Steve
2006-11-05 09:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
Well Im getting about 35 from a Nissan Navara driven sensibly, thats better
than a lot of standard euro-box saloons. In fact, driven sensibly is
probably better than most of the cars zooming past me at 90mph on the
motorway while I stick to around 60 or 70.

Steve
Zathras
2006-11-05 09:45:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:53:27 +0000, Marvin
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
That's because, from about the turn of the century, demand has
encouraged manufacturers to make them like that. Why make basic,
cheap, low margin cars for a skinflints when you can have high
performance, high margin compact executives flying out the door with
as many high margin extras loaded on as possible. Car manufacturers
need to make money and not many do.
Post by Marvin
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Get used to it..fossil fuels aren't getting made any more.
Post by Marvin
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
The answer is in your observations. If you want torque (and power
these days) plus better mpg, get a diesel. That's the argument I used
way back in 2001.
--
Z
Vim Fuego
2006-11-05 11:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
As others have said, depends on your mileage, also how new the vehicle
you're buying is. I drive ten year old bangers where the difference in price
between a petrol and diesel variant is maybe a hundred quid, which rapidly
pays for itself, e.g. I'm on my fourth vehicle with a 1527cc TUD5 Peugeot
engine and it returns 55mpg almost regardless of how/where you drive it.
Just squeezes into the cheap tax bracket too. Dunno what the consumption of
the equivalent 1.0L petrol is but I imagine the diesel pays for itself in
3-6 months. And then you've got the better reliability (no HT, no carb) and
longevity of the engine which is a major bonus in a ten year old car.
Usually with a TUD5 powered car, the car dies around the still perfectly
healthy engine (or rusts around the engine in the case of the Metros they
put this engine in :-)

I notice that some of the petrol engines seem to be catching up though, I
recall they were advertising a 60mpgish figure for the current Suzuki Alto
when that came out, presumably that's not a combined figure?
DervMan
2006-11-05 13:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vim Fuego
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
As others have said, depends on your mileage, also how new the vehicle
you're buying is. I drive ten year old bangers where the difference in
price between a petrol and diesel variant is maybe a hundred quid, which
rapidly pays for itself, e.g. I'm on my fourth vehicle with a 1527cc TUD5
Peugeot engine and it returns 55mpg almost regardless of how/where you
drive it. Just squeezes into the cheap tax bracket too. Dunno what the
consumption of the equivalent 1.0L petrol is but I imagine the diesel pays
for itself in 3-6 months.
If you're returning just over the official combined cycle in the 1.5 106,
you'd be looking at around 45 mpg from the 0.95 litre base model.

If unleaded costs 84p per litre and diesel is 90p per litre... by my quick
and dirty calculations the 106 diesel will cost you around 7p per mile and
the petrol 9p per mile. So call it five thousand miles....
Post by Vim Fuego
And then you've got the better reliability (no HT, no carb) and longevity
of the engine which is a major bonus in a ten year old car.
And it sounds better, and it comes with a five speed - it'll be quieter at
speed.
Post by Vim Fuego
Usually with a TUD5 powered car, the car dies around the still perfectly
healthy engine (or rusts around the engine in the case of the Metros they
put this engine in :-)
I notice that some of the petrol engines seem to be catching up though, I
recall they were advertising a 60mpgish figure for the current Suzuki Alto
when that came out, presumably that's not a combined figure?
There are *huge* numbers of petrol cars that manage over 60 to the gallon
over the Extra Urban figure... the only petrol cars I know about that are
officially capable of sixty to the gallon are either hybrids or the Smart
City Coupes.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Morse
2006-11-05 16:26:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
They dont seem to be getting any more economical, just more powerful.
More powerful for the same fuel consumption, so they are indeed more
economical! You can get 1.4 (even 1.3 IIRC) turbodiesels now which are
quicker and more economical than 1.7 turbodiesels of yesteryear.
Manufacturers are naturally also offering the bigger, sportier lumps as well
like the 130-150BHP types, because they sell to customers who would have
perhaps bought performance, and hence quite thirsty, petrols. There's plenty
of smaller engined, highly economical Diesel cars out there though.

Diesels are not just about economy these days- they have other benefits as
well and Diesel engines cover options from small and frugal to fast and
sporty.
Post by Marvin
Meanwhile, the price of diesel is getting a bit silly.
Is it?
Post by Marvin
Is it worth buying a diesel car anymore?
Yes. Good points IMO-

Generally better power delivery than petrol on a turbo diesel IMO, so
they're often more fun to drive.

Much better engine longevity if well maintained. I'd be quite happy to buy a
Diesel with 200K+ on the clock provided it ran well and sounded good.

Less bore/ring wear when cold- diesel has some lubricating properties,
unlike petrol which breaks down cylinder lubrication. AIUI it's less of an
issue on modern cars though.

Able to run on a wide range of fuels in some cases. That could be important
in the future if and when oil is rationed.

Better fuel economy for a given performance figure. Sporty power levels like
130 or 150BHP but still achieve 50mpg, can the average petrol engined car do
that?

No damp starting or faulty ignition problems.

Usually better resale value.

Modern common rail Diesels have very clean exhausts.

No explosion if you crash! It's also safe during refuelling, no amount of
sparking will ignite it.

Bad points IMO:

Some don't like the noise. I did find the 'pinking'/random clicking noise on
acceleration (suppressed diesel knock?) on a loaned 2005 Astra DTi a bit
annoying- I think I'd have preferred the good old diesel noise!

Dearer when new.

Limited rev range compared to petrol. (But the turbo makes up for that IMO)

Not all garages are completely Diesel-savvy.

Rely on turbochargers to give good peformance- when they go wrong it can be
disastrous. (smaller DCi engine owners beware!)

Refuelling- it's oily and smelly stuff and if some numpty gets it on the
pump handle it gets on your hands and stays there, unlike petrol which
evaporates rapidly.

Can be very expensive when the Diesel pumps break.

Heavier lumps can mean different handling characteristics, though I
preferred my Focus TDDI to my 1.6 Zetec.

Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them anymore
so it's irrelevent.

Basically, diesels are great used buys when the price differential to
petrols is much less, but if buying new some people will need to calculate
the extra cost v miles covered in its lifetime as it could take years to pay
for itself. OTOH some people will pay the extra cost for a Diesel for
reasons other than economy, a point many petrol advocates seem to forget.

Morse.
DervMan
2006-11-05 17:12:33 UTC
Permalink
"Morse" <***@rpa.com> wrote in message news:bs6dnUz-***@pipex.net...

[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them anymore
so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW or
Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked, too.

Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's all a
bit academic.

[snip]
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Morse
2006-11-05 17:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them
anymore so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW
or Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked,
too.
I stand corrected! I had to endure 3 years of very reliable but painfully
dull motoring with a non-turbo K reg Astra 1.7 Diesel, never again! I
wouldn't have thought there'd still be a market for non-turbo Diesels these
days, you live and learn!
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's all
a bit academic.
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when there
are decent alternatives for much less money.

Morse
DervMan
2006-11-05 18:01:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them
anymore so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW
or Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked,
too.
I stand corrected! I had to endure 3 years of very reliable but painfully
dull motoring with a non-turbo K reg Astra 1.7 Diesel, never again! I
wouldn't have thought there'd still be a market for non-turbo Diesels
these days, you live and learn!
Which? readers, who see that a Golf, Polo, Fabia or Octavia is the best
machine for them to have, but discover that they can't afford the 1.9 TDI
105 so believe the SDI is the next best thing.
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's
all a bit academic.
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when there
are decent alternatives for much less money.
Stupidity?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Marvin
2006-11-05 18:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them
anymore so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW
or Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked,
too.
I stand corrected! I had to endure 3 years of very reliable but painfully
dull motoring with a non-turbo K reg Astra 1.7 Diesel, never again! I
wouldn't have thought there'd still be a market for non-turbo Diesels
these days, you live and learn!
Which? readers, who see that a Golf, Polo, Fabia or Octavia is the best
machine for them to have, but discover that they can't afford the 1.9 TDI
105 so believe the SDI is the next best thing.
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's
all a bit academic.
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when there
are decent alternatives for much less money.
Stupidity?
That's what it is. They follow the herd because they dont know much
about cars and want something that is supposedly reliable. My mate used
to have a Polo, I could feel how dire the handling was and I was sitting
in the passenger seat...
DervMan
2006-11-05 18:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them
anymore so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the
VW or Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I
looked, too.
I stand corrected! I had to endure 3 years of very reliable but
painfully dull motoring with a non-turbo K reg Astra 1.7 Diesel, never
again! I wouldn't have thought there'd still be a market for non-turbo
Diesels these days, you live and learn!
Which? readers, who see that a Golf, Polo, Fabia or Octavia is the best
machine for them to have, but discover that they can't afford the 1.9 TDI
105 so believe the SDI is the next best thing.
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's
all a bit academic.
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when
there are decent alternatives for much less money.
Stupidity?
That's what it is. They follow the herd because they dont know much about
cars and want something that is supposedly reliable. My mate used to have
a Polo, I could feel how dire the handling was and I was sitting in the
passenger seat...
Eh? How so?
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
mike. buckley
2006-11-06 13:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Morse
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when
there are decent alternatives for much less money.
Stupidity?
That's what it is. They follow the herd because they dont know much
about cars and want something that is supposedly reliable. My mate used
to have a Polo, I could feel how dire the handling was and I was
sitting in the passenger seat...
I feel have to stick up for Polos here. Coming from a "decent
alternative for much less money"[1] we're much much happier with the
Polo. For a start it's got through it's first MOT without costing 300
quid, and nothings fallen off. Also, compared to my Leon there's a
definite improvement in build quality[2], and Seat use VW parts! Not
great handling I can agree with though, however lets face it - this is
the next to bottom spec model and handling isn't an issue when you're
using the car to travel across Birmingham in rush hour....

It's all down to choice...

[1] Ka
[2] and reliability, nothing's broken, unlike my Leon
--
Mike Buckley
RD350LC2 GPZ750 Turbo
http://www.toastyhamster.org
BONY#38
Chris Bartram
2006-11-07 10:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by mike. buckley
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Post by Morse
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when
there are decent alternatives for much less money.
Because they like VW group cars? That's why I do.
Post by mike. buckley
Post by Marvin
Post by DervMan
Stupidity?
No, stupidity is buying something you don't like, or buying a car solely
on What Car advice. I know people that love italian cars. (Ping
SteveH?). I hate them. That is my choice.
Post by mike. buckley
Post by Marvin
That's what it is. They follow the herd because they dont know much
about cars and want something that is supposedly reliable.
I don't think the herd buy VWs. Seems to be Fords/Peugots a lot of the
time. I haven't driven a recent ford (the last one being a vile
base-model 2001 fiesta with some godawful pushrod engine from about
1950), so i can't comment, but the last Peugot I drove wasn't very nice.
Not awful, but I wouldn't buy one.

IME they are reliable. Maybe not that much *more* reliable than a Ford,
but I've never had any serious problems, having had almost exclusively
VAG cars since the late 80s. In fact, the non-VAG cars i've had were
worse. I realise that isn't a representative sample......

Let's face it, if you really want reliable, you buy Toyota/Honda if you
want an ordinary car, Lexus if you have £££££. They consistently come
high up in the reliabilty scores (the ones like JD Power where users
rate them).
Post by mike. buckley
Post by Marvin
My mate
used to have a Polo, I could feel how dire the handling was and I was
sitting in the passenger seat...
But that isn't representative either.
Post by mike. buckley
I feel have to stick up for Polos here. Coming from a "decent
alternative for much less money"[1] we're much much happier with the
Polo. For a start it's got through it's first MOT without costing 300
quid, and nothings fallen off. Also, compared to my Leon there's a
definite improvement in build quality[2], and Seat use VW parts! Not
great handling I can agree with though, however lets face it - this is
the next to bottom spec model and handling isn't an issue when you're
using the car to travel across Birmingham in rush hour....
It's all down to choice...
[1] Ka
[2] and reliability, nothing's broken, unlike my Leon
I'll stick up for them too. Admission: I'm a VW (or rather VW Group)
fanboy. We had a Polo TDI that handled quite well ( a damn sight better
than the fiesta courtesy car I had at the same time), and went pretty
well too (again, better than the fester).


It *was* expensive though (it had leather, aircon, etc), but we weren't
paying.
SteveH
2006-11-07 21:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bartram
I'll stick up for them too. Admission: I'm a VW (or rather VW Group)
fanboy. We had a Polo TDI that handled quite well ( a damn sight better
than the fiesta courtesy car I had at the same time), and went pretty
well too (again, better than the fester).
I'm glad it's not just me who can see through the media hype surrounding
the fact that Ford now produce cars that don't handle like a canal
barge..... they're much improved, but they're not the class leading
designs the media would have us believe.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
DervMan
2006-11-07 21:01:01 UTC
Permalink
writes
Post by DervMan
Post by Morse
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when
there are decent alternatives for much less money.
Stupidity?
That's what it is. They follow the herd because they dont know much about
cars and want something that is supposedly reliable. My mate used to have
a Polo, I could feel how dire the handling was and I was sitting in the
passenger seat...
I feel have to stick up for Polos here. Coming from a "decent alternative
for much less money"[1] we're much much happier with the Polo. For a start
it's got through it's first MOT without costing 300 quid, and nothings
fallen off. Also, compared to my Leon there's a definite improvement in
build quality[2], and Seat use VW parts! Not great handling I can agree
with though, however lets face it - this is the next to bottom spec model
and handling isn't an issue when you're using the car to travel across
Birmingham in rush hour....
It's all down to choice...
[1] Ka
[2] and reliability, nothing's broken, unlike my Leon
On the other hand, the 2004 Polo 1.4 I had as a courtesy car was appalling
in several respects.

Firstly, <3,000 miles on the odometer and it rattled.

Second and of more significance, VAG's horrendous drive-by-wire system,
designed seemingly to compensate for people who are unable to maintain a
constant throttle position. You squeeze the accelerator pedal to maintain
speed up a hill and... you slow down. You push it harder and you still slow
down. You thump the accelerator down and it picks up. Oh and as for power
delivery, this was the 1.4i-16 75 PS donk. No great ball of fire but so
little under 3,000 rpm and by 5,000 rpm the party was over...

Then there's the chassis' inability to contain just 75 bhp in the lower
three years on anything other than a straight line.

The "semi automatic" air conditioning, which is marketing fluff for putting
temperature numbers on the heater knob rather than shades of blue or red.

A cassette player rather than a CD player...

I could go on. Point is, I couldn't understand why people buy the Polo when
just about everything else in the class is better.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Chris Bartram
2006-11-07 21:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
On the other hand, the 2004 Polo 1.4 I had as a courtesy car was appalling
in several respects.
Firstly, <3,000 miles on the odometer and it rattled.
Not good.
Post by DervMan
Second and of more significance, VAG's horrendous drive-by-wire system,
designed seemingly to compensate for people who are unable to maintain a
constant throttle position. You squeeze the accelerator pedal to maintain
speed up a hill and... you slow down. You push it harder and you still slow
down. You thump the accelerator down and it picks up. Oh and as for power
delivery, this was the 1.4i-16 75 PS donk. No great ball of fire but so
little under 3,000 rpm and by 5,000 rpm the party was over...
Seems to work OK in our 100BHP 1.4i-16 Lupo. Only criticism is it's a
bit all or nothing in the first bit of travel, so as you pull away it
takes practice to not give it a bootful of revs. The 100BHP version
isn't very torquey low down, but really starts to fly at 5000.
Presumably the 75BHP version is crippled (anyone want to bet it's just
marketing and software?). Mind, I don't like small petrol engines and
just about forgive the 1.4 100BHP because it picks up so well at revs.

The Polo we had was a 1.4TDI, and a cracker. But then, I'm a *diesel*
VAG fanboy :-P
Post by DervMan
Then there's the chassis' inability to contain just 75 bhp in the lower
three years on anything other than a straight line.
The Lupo would do OK were it not for shit tyres. My Fabia vRS does very
well with 130BHP and [can't remember but a fair bit] lb/ft on the Polo
chassis. Probably better damping and tyres than the poverty spec Polo
though.
Post by DervMan
The "semi automatic" air conditioning, which is marketing fluff for putting
temperature numbers on the heater knob rather than shades of blue or red.
Have to disagree. My Fabia has it and it works. It isn't as good as
proper climate control, but it's not bad. It actually does turn the
heater down as the cabin warms up.
Post by DervMan
A cassette player rather than a CD player...
That is mean.
Post by DervMan
I could go on. Point is, I couldn't understand why people buy the Polo when
just about everything else in the class is better.
No way is just about everything better. I had the misfortune of 206
recently, and it was foul.
SteveH
2006-11-07 21:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by DervMan
The "semi automatic" air conditioning, which is marketing fluff for putting
temperature numbers on the heater knob rather than shades of blue or red.
Have to disagree. My Fabia has it and it works. It isn't as good as
proper climate control, but it's not bad. It actually does turn the
heater down as the cabin warms up.
It's definitely a lot more than numbers on a heater knob - I noticed
today that, in the Passat, when you move the knob, it's activating a
servo buried deep in the dash. I've also heard it doing something when
I'm not turning the knob. The one thing I miss with 'Climatic' vs.
'Climatronic' is the fully automatic mode when it does clever stuff with
the vents.
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by DervMan
A cassette player rather than a CD player...
That is mean.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure - given that most people these days own MP3
players, a cassette slot is much more useful than a CD slot. I've had to
buy an FM transmitter for my iPod because the AUX-in kit for OEM stereos
is usually stupidly expensive.
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by DervMan
I could go on. Point is, I couldn't understand why people buy the Polo when
just about everything else in the class is better.
No way is just about everything better. I had the misfortune of 206
recently, and it was foul.
I tend not to drive small cars when I need one on hire, however, I've
been able to compare a Touran with a C-Max, which is a win for the
Touran. Also driven a poverty spec MkV Golf, which was surprisingly
good. Once you get into larger cars, the Passat pisses on the Mondeo
from a great height.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
Chris Bartram
2006-11-07 21:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveH
The one thing I miss with 'Climatic' vs.
'Climatronic' is the fully automatic mode when it does clever stuff with
the vents.
I miss that and the automatic fan speed control, and (linked with it)
the fact
that it kept the fan off until the coolant was hot enough, so it didn't blow
cold air at you.
Ivan
2006-11-07 22:35:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveH
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by DervMan
A cassette player rather than a CD player...
That is mean.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure - given that most people these days own MP3
players, a cassette slot is much more useful than a CD slot. I've had
to buy an FM transmitter for my iPod because the AUX-in kit for OEM
stereos is usually stupidly expensive.
I've recently acquired a Ford focus estate first registered in yr 02, but
guess what, for some strange reason it's only fitted with a cassette/radio..
perhaps the previous owner swapped it over? as I can't believe that a
vehicle that young wouldn't be fitted with CD/radio.

However as a temporary expedient I purchased a cassette adaptor complete
with MP3 holder in Currys for the princely sum of £1.97 and have to say that
I was very pleased with the performance, which was far better than I had
anticipated.

As you say it's odd the number of new car radios now being sold without a
few 'extra pence' worth of 3.5 mm jack auxiliary input, especially as the
manufacturers must know that MP3 players are now the norm.. even the ancient
cheap Audioline cassette radio in my Astra had one fitted as standard fare.
Douglas Payne
2006-11-06 14:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them
anymore so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW
or Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked,
too.
I stand corrected! I had to endure 3 years of very reliable but painfully
dull motoring with a non-turbo K reg Astra 1.7 Diesel, never again! I
wouldn't have thought there'd still be a market for non-turbo Diesels these
days, you live and learn!
As diesel engines go, the non turbo 1.7D fitted to Astras of that
generation (we had an L reg one) was absolutely terrible. We had
Peugeot diesels alongside it, none of them was particularly fiery but
back to back there was no comparison.
--
Douglas
Guy King
2006-11-06 16:05:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
As diesel engines go, the non turbo 1.7D fitted to Astras of that
generation (we had an L reg one) was absolutely terrible.
You should have tried the 4-speed 1.6 diesel that preceeded it. Ugh.
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Chris Bartram
2006-11-07 10:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by Douglas Payne
As diesel engines go, the non turbo 1.7D fitted to Astras of that
generation (we had an L reg one) was absolutely terrible.
You should have tried the 4-speed 1.6 diesel that preceeded it. Ugh.
I've had the misfortune of driving one in a Mk1 Astra van. A very flat
tourque cure, that one. Fuck all from tickover up to the governor.
Guy King
2006-11-07 11:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bartram
Post by Guy King
You should have tried the 4-speed 1.6 diesel that preceeded it. Ugh.
I've had the misfortune of driving one in a Mk1 Astra van. A very flat
tourque cure, that one. Fuck all from tickover up to the governor.
That was it. I had one for some time as a Rediffusion techie.
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
DervMan
2006-11-07 21:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by Douglas Payne
As diesel engines go, the non turbo 1.7D fitted to Astras of that
generation (we had an L reg one) was absolutely terrible.
You should have tried the 4-speed 1.6 diesel that preceeded it. Ugh.
I have only tried that donk in a Cavalier...
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Chris Bartram
2006-11-07 21:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Guy King
Post by Douglas Payne
As diesel engines go, the non turbo 1.7D fitted to Astras of that
generation (we had an L reg one) was absolutely terrible.
You should have tried the 4-speed 1.6 diesel that preceeded it. Ugh.
I have only tried that donk in a Cavalier...
Christ. I'm surprised it moved.
SteveH
2006-11-07 21:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morse
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's all
a bit academic.
I've never understood why people pay so much money for VW cars when there
are decent alternatives for much less money.
But these days, they don't.

List price of a Passat is *lower* than the list price of an equivalent
Mongsdildo.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
Douglas Payne
2006-11-06 14:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them anymore
so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW or
Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked, too.
I think the NA XUD9 engine is evolved a bit and called DW8 now. It's
being phased out this year (according to wikipedia) as it doesn't meet
EuroIV.

Changeover from XU to DW must have been about 1998 as more than one
parts website asks me whether it's an XU or a DW when I'm looking for bits.

AFAIK It's installed in many Berlingo and Partner vans and I remember
driving a 206 with one in.
--
Douglas
Adrian
2006-11-06 14:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
I think the NA XUD9 engine is evolved a bit and called DW8 now.
Yes, and no.

The DW8 is the non-turbo version of the HDi - it's sort-of based on the old
XUD but quite a chunk different.
DervMan
2006-11-07 21:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by DervMan
[snip]
Post by Morse
Non-turbo diesels are no fun to drive, but AFAIK no one makes them
anymore so it's irrelevent.
The Volkswagen Audi group still sell lots of SDI donks, either in the VW
or Skoda brands. Peugeot still flogged the 1.9 XUD last time I looked,
too.
I think the NA XUD9 engine is evolved a bit and called DW8 now. It's
being phased out this year (according to wikipedia) as it doesn't meet
EuroIV.
Changeover from XU to DW must have been about 1998 as more than one parts
website asks me whether it's an XU or a DW when I'm looking for bits.
AFAIK It's installed in many Berlingo and Partner vans and I remember
driving a 206 with one in.
Yes, I've driven a few 206s with that particular donk.

Economical (36 / 63 / 50), relatively smooth and quiet and has that
lovely... hmm... XUD feeling about it. Hard to describe. Just a decent
compromise. The only weakness of the 206* with the 1.9 XUD is that it's a
heavy donk, it needs turbocharging and almost all sold are poverty
specification machines.

XUD, DW, I'll always call it the XUD! :)

*aside the 206 issues.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Zathras
2006-11-06 21:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's all a
bit academic.
Middle of the road (for Audi):
Audi A4 3.0 TDI 233hp. 0-60 mph 6.8s top speed 153mph. Boring???

High end (for Audi):
Audi S8 5.2 Petrol V10 450hp. 0-60 mph 5s top speed 155 (limited).
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.

Only a biker would consider these boring..surely!
--
Z
Billy H
2006-11-06 21:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's all a
bit academic.
Audi A4 3.0 TDI 233hp. 0-60 mph 6.8s top speed 153mph. Boring???
Audi S8 5.2 Petrol V10 450hp. 0-60 mph 5s top speed 155 (limited).
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.
Only a biker would consider these boring..surely!
--
Z
I took the six year old 316i for a jet wash today.

It made itself do a nice donut just off the forecourt of the filling
station. Fuck me if I wasn't glad it did it discreetly!!

--
Billy H
Adrian
2006-11-06 21:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.
... but if such a beast exists, you can guarantee it'd be German or
Japanese.
DervMan
2006-11-07 21:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so it's all a
bit academic.
Audi A4 3.0 TDI 233hp. 0-60 mph 6.8s top speed 153mph. Boring???
Audi S8 5.2 Petrol V10 450hp. 0-60 mph 5s top speed 155 (limited).
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.
On ordinary roads, many are pretty boring. Quick, yes, but boring.
Post by Zathras
Only a biker would consider these boring..surely!
No. Because being able to accelerate quickly in a straight line starts to
feel immature and boring after a while. There's no skill involved, just,
get and go.
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
Zathras
2006-11-08 08:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Post by Zathras
Audi S8 5.2 Petrol V10 450hp. 0-60 mph 5s top speed 155 (limited).
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.
On ordinary roads, many are pretty boring. Quick, yes, but boring.
How on earth can a 450hp V10 be boring in a car..I simply do not
understand? Have you tried one..did you fall asleep at the wheel due
to the tedium?
Post by DervMan
Post by Zathras
Only a biker would consider these boring..surely!
No. Because being able to accelerate quickly in a straight line starts to
feel immature and boring after a while. There's no skill involved, just,
get and go.
I'm afraid I need more persuasion than that..Audis with Quattro (by
all accounts I've seen) corner fast and hard as if on rails. When they
let go it's a neutral slide. My experience of cars that can be
cornered fast is that of passengers being sick with terror - not
saying 'come on this is boring'.

Straight line speed and quickness *are* considered by many interesting
- indeed there's even a motor sport dedicated to it. Is Drag Racing
just for the immature?

I think there's a few people out there that would take issue with the
'no skill' required to drive boring cars - all road cars need driven
with skill. If additional special skills are required just to get them
round corners then that could just as well be because they've got
rubbish handling (think early Vectras etc) not because they're
'interesting'. It's a scary thought that someone unskilled might drive
an S8.
--
Z
Adrian
2006-11-08 13:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Post by DervMan
Post by Zathras
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.
On ordinary roads, many are pretty boring. Quick, yes, but boring.
How on earth can a 450hp V10 be boring in a car..I simply do not
understand? Have you tried one..did you fall asleep at the wheel due
to the tedium?
There is no easy relationship between power (or lack thereof) and
"boringness".
Zathras
2006-11-08 15:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Zathras
Post by DervMan
Post by Zathras
I've never been in a 5s 0-60 car that was boring.
On ordinary roads, many are pretty boring. Quick, yes, but boring.
How on earth can a 450hp V10 be boring in a car..I simply do not
understand? Have you tried one..did you fall asleep at the wheel due
to the tedium?
There is no easy relationship between power (or lack thereof) and
"boringness".
But my theory is 0-60 in 3s = high probability of excitement. 0-60 in
33s = low probability of excitement. I appreciate that 450hp in a ship
might equate more to the latter but I'm talking about cars.
--
Z
Adrian
2006-11-08 15:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Post by Adrian
There is no easy relationship between power (or lack thereof) and
"boringness".
But my theory is 0-60 in 3s = high probability of excitement. 0-60 in
33s = low probability of excitement. I appreciate that 450hp in a ship
might equate more to the latter but I'm talking about cars.
Sorry, but you're just plain WRONG.

Low-powered cars can be a complete hoot to drive, _because_ they're so damn
slow. You can hammer 'em and lob 'em FAR nearer the limit FAR more of the
time.

High-powered cars are just plain tedious for 90%+ of the time, because
they're so completely wasted.
Guy King
2006-11-08 16:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Low-powered cars can be a complete hoot to drive, _because_ they're so damn
slow. You can hammer 'em and lob 'em FAR nearer the limit FAR more of the
time.
850 Mini, anyone?
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Zathras
2006-11-08 18:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by Adrian
Low-powered cars can be a complete hoot to drive, _because_ they're so damn
slow. You can hammer 'em and lob 'em FAR nearer the limit FAR more of the
time.
850 Mini, anyone?
LOL!
--
Z
Zathras
2006-11-08 18:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Zathras
Post by Adrian
There is no easy relationship between power (or lack thereof) and
"boringness".
But my theory is 0-60 in 3s = high probability of excitement. 0-60 in
33s = low probability of excitement. I appreciate that 450hp in a ship
might equate more to the latter but I'm talking about cars.
Sorry, but you're just plain WRONG.
Incorrect..that's just *your opinion* and I'm quite entitled to mine.
Post by Adrian
Low-powered cars can be a complete hoot to drive, _because_ they're so damn
slow. You can hammer 'em and lob 'em FAR nearer the limit FAR more of the
time.
If a car's not on the limit it's boring then? Have you ever been in a
supercar?
Post by Adrian
High-powered cars are just plain tedious for 90%+ of the time, because
they're so completely wasted.
Couldn't agree less. I've never found a moment in a Porsche 911, Lotus
or Ferrari that was boring. Nevertheless, if you were to tell me that
a 2CV is less boring than, say, a Ferrari 599 GTB then I think you're
beyond help.
--
Z
Tim S Kemp
2006-11-07 22:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so
it's all a bit academic.
Gallardo. Murcielago. Leon. Golf GTi, new TT. Veyron. Phaeton.

You were saying?
--
The pellet with the poison's in the flagon with the dragon; the vessel
with the pestle has the brew that is true.
Guy King
2006-11-08 00:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Murcielago
Am I the only one who reads that as Mucilage?
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
PC Paul
2006-11-08 17:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by Tim S Kemp
Murcielago
Am I the only one who reads that as Mucilage?
No.
Guy King
2006-11-08 18:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by Tim S Kemp
Murcielago
Am I the only one who reads that as Mucilage?
No.
Vegetable or bacterial?
--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Adrian
2006-11-08 13:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by DervMan
Thing is, VAG products are no fun to drive whatever the engine so
it's all a bit academic.
Gallardo. Murcielago. Leon. Golf GTi, new TT. Veyron.
Conti GT...
Post by Tim S Kemp
Phaeton.
Really? But it's a ton heavier than the A8. I'd have thought that'd make it
handle like a cow. Or is the A8 just utterly sublime?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...