Discussion:
Why diesels?
(too old to reply)
Johannes
2005-10-19 11:07:49 UTC
Permalink
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
gazzafield
2005-10-19 11:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
You probably never will be. I drive petrol cars personally but would really
like to get a modern diesel, I just can't afford one. I drive an Astra 1.7
TDI van occassionally for my work and I have been very impressed with the
torque and power of the thing. It would positively eat my Laguna 8v 1.8 for
breakfast as it is a gutless old thing and just doesn't rev. My Laguna also
barely returns 30mpg. The van does a minimum of 45mpg. Go figure.
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-19 11:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
the 2.0TDi is not a modern common rail diesel - you need to go out in a
1.9 CDti 150ps - a completely different animal.

The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Douglas Payne
2005-10-19 13:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.

I bet your next car is French Tim. (c:

Douglas
Adrian
2005-10-19 14:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.
Cue Satan buying a snow shovel...
Douglas Payne
2005-10-19 14:39:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.
Cue Satan buying a snow shovel...
Satan also secretly wants wants my BX.

Douglas
Adrian
2005-10-19 14:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Adrian
Cue Satan buying a snow shovel...
Satan also secretly wants wants my BX.
Who has been that evil in life, to be greeted as they disembark from the
crossing of the Styx with the keys to a BX?

<thinks> Clarkson.
Non-turbo BX17D? Italian-market BX11? With flat spheres, of course.
Steve Walker
2005-10-19 16:28:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Adrian
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.
Cue Satan buying a snow shovel...
Satan also secretly wants wants my BX.
The silly bugger shouldn't have sold it in the first place then.
--
Steve Walker
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-19 20:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.
Japanese. And diesel. I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for cost saving - I needed to halve my
fuel bill and went to a smaller diesel to do it. Our next car is only diesel
because the cost difference was minimal (and I rarely drive it...)
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
Pete M
2005-10-20 10:00:23 UTC
Permalink
In news:***@karoo.co.uk,
Tim S Kemp <***@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> decided to enlighten our sheltered
souls with a rant as follows
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All
have power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.
Japanese. And diesel. I've always held the opinion, and voiced the
opinion, that the only reason to go diesel is for cost saving - I
needed to halve my fuel bill and went to a smaller diesel to do it.
Our next car is only diesel because the cost difference was minimal
(and I rarely drive it...)
So that's the diesel bit of the argument sorted, but the Japanese bit???

Just because it's powered my Dr D's Evil Invention shouldn't mean you have
to sit in a grey plastic tomb whilst driving it.
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
NeedforSwede2
2005-10-20 12:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Japanese. And diesel. I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for cost saving - I needed to halve my
fuel bill and went to a smaller diesel to do it. Our next car is only diesel
because the cost difference was minimal (and I rarely drive it...)
Accord CDTi?
--
Carl Robson
Car PC Build starts again. http://smallr.com/rz
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
Zathras
2005-10-20 21:27:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:55:40 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Douglas Payne
Post by Tim S Kemp
The best diesels are the Merc V6 320, BMW 530/535/330/335, Volvo D5,
Jag/Ford/PSA 2.7 V6, Audi/VW V10/V8, Fiat/GM JTD, Honda 2.2. All have
power, refinement and economy.
Jings. How times change.
Japanese. And diesel. I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for cost saving
With the latest Diesels, you know..ones from manufacturers managing
quiet refinement, more hp/cc, torque/cc and mpg from diesel than
petrol (like BMW), the question must be 'why buy petrol cars (over
1400cc)..ever?'

Even 4 years ago I bought my diesel for its performance not its
economy - an Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD. 5 Years ago these were 130hp, now
they're 175hp but the same mpg!! 200hp has been announced for the next
model next year and certain versions of that engine are planned for
220hp in the not too distant future IIRC. Every manufacturer with
decent diesel technology is making similar advances and what have
petrol cars been doing in that time? Nothing comparable. One reason
Joe Public is buying far more diesels than ever before.
--
Z
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-20 23:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
With the latest Diesels, you know..ones from manufacturers managing
quiet refinement, more hp/cc, torque/cc and mpg from diesel than
petrol (like BMW), the question must be 'why buy petrol cars (over
1400cc)..ever?'
Even 4 years ago I bought my diesel for its performance not its
economy - an Alfa Romeo 156 2.4JTD. 5 Years ago these were 130hp, now
they're 175hp but the same mpg!! 200hp has been announced for the next
model next year and certain versions of that engine are planned for
220hp in the not too distant future IIRC. Every manufacturer with
decent diesel technology is making similar advances and what have
petrol cars been doing in that time? Nothing comparable. One reason
Joe Public is buying far more diesels than ever before.
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.

BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.

even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without a
turbocharger.
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
AstraVanMan
2005-10-21 10:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.
Indeed, it's because they can't rev, and due to the nature of diesel
combustion, they never will be able to rev much past about 4500rpm. I
think. Can someone who knows explain the physics behind that?
Post by Tim S Kemp
BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.
even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without
a turbocharger.
Yes, but that's because they rev about 60% or so higher. All people can do
with diesel engines is increase the torque available in their limited
powerband (up to around 4500rpm generally) and after that, changing up is
the only option. I'm pretty sure a similar sized turbodiesel will produce a
reasonable amount more torque at revs within this range than even a similar
size turbo petrol - certainly below 3000 or so rpm.
--
Tell me your birthday! www.BornOnTheSameDay.co.uk
Called Pete? Join The Pete Collective NOW at www.thepetecollective.co.uk
Pete M
2005-10-21 11:22:22 UTC
Permalink
In news:BO36f.6977$***@newsfe6-win.ntli.net,
AstraVanMan <***@Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk> decided to enlighten
our sheltered souls with a rant as follows
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't
there yet.
Indeed, it's because they can't rev, and due to the nature of diesel
combustion, they never will be able to rev much past about 4500rpm. I
think. Can someone who knows explain the physics behind that?
It's the amount of time diesel takes to burn that limits the RPM range.

Petrol + spark = boom

Diesel is much more awkward to set fire to!
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
Guy King
2005-10-21 13:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by AstraVanMan
Yes, but that's because they rev about 60% or so higher. All people can do
with diesel engines is increase the torque available in their limited
powerband (up to around 4500rpm generally) and after that, changing up is
the only option.
Ah, the joys of an automatic. I have a little box which takes care of
all that tedious rowing stuff for me. The only time this month I've
pushed the pedal all the way down is towing a Laguna up a 1:7 hill.
--
Skipweasel
Never knowingly understood. (Ivor Cutler)
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 18:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by AstraVanMan
Yes, but that's because they rev about 60% or so higher. All people
can do with diesel engines is increase the torque available in their
limited powerband (up to around 4500rpm generally) and after that,
changing up is the only option. I'm pretty sure a similar sized
turbodiesel will produce a reasonable amount more torque at revs
within this range than even a similar size turbo petrol - certainly
below 3000 or so rpm.
therein lies the rub - with the limited amount of *power* low gears must be
very low to allow overtaking and quick accelleration from rest. So you end
up with huge gaps, or lots of gears. So I bought an auto...
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
JackH
2005-10-21 18:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by AstraVanMan
Yes, but that's because they rev about 60% or so higher. All people
can do with diesel engines is increase the torque available in their
limited powerband (up to around 4500rpm generally) and after that,
changing up is the only option. I'm pretty sure a similar sized
turbodiesel will produce a reasonable amount more torque at revs
within this range than even a similar size turbo petrol - certainly
below 3000 or so rpm.
therein lies the rub - with the limited amount of *power* low gears must be
very low to allow overtaking and quick accelleration from rest.
You're obviously not driving the same TDIs I do...

The gearing seems as evenly spaced in my Passat as my Cavalier.

And... as for dropping down to overtake... *boggle*. ;-)

--
JackH
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 19:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JackH
Post by Tim S Kemp
therein lies the rub - with the limited amount of *power* low gears
must be very low to allow overtaking and quick accelleration from
rest.
You're obviously not driving the same TDIs I do...
The gearing seems as evenly spaced in my Passat as my Cavalier.
And... as for dropping down to overtake... *boggle*. ;-)
Heh - you're torquing about the prodigious talk of the PD engine and the
requirement not to change down - facilitated by the descending torque curve
meaning power is constant over a certain rev range, unlike petrol engines
that are normally tuned for power to increase with revs.

I seldom had to change down in my Volvo, but in the golf (130PS) you use
4th and 3rd a lot, and they run out quite early. Feels quick, but it isn't.
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
Pete M
2005-10-21 19:27:00 UTC
Permalink
In news:***@karoo.co.uk,
Tim S Kemp <***@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> decided to enlighten our sheltered
souls with a rant as follows
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by JackH
Post by Tim S Kemp
therein lies the rub - with the limited amount of *power* low gears
must be very low to allow overtaking and quick accelleration from
rest.
You're obviously not driving the same TDIs I do...
The gearing seems as evenly spaced in my Passat as my Cavalier.
And... as for dropping down to overtake... *boggle*. ;-)
Heh - you're torquing about the prodigious talk of the PD engine and
the requirement not to change down - facilitated by the descending
torque curve meaning power is constant over a certain rev range,
unlike petrol engines that are normally tuned for power to increase
with revs.
I seldom had to change down in my Volvo, but in the golf (130PS) you
use 4th and 3rd a lot, and they run out quite early. Feels quick, but
it isn't.
That's because the ovloV had useable torque, over a nice, wide, lazy
spectrum.

Best way I've discovered of shutting up fans of diesels is taking them for a
spin in the Jensen.

7.2 litres of naturally aspirated V8 soon shows 'em what torque is all
about.
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 19:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete M
That's because the ovloV had useable torque, over a nice, wide, lazy
spectrum.
Best way I've discovered of shutting up fans of diesels is taking
them for a spin in the Jensen.
7.2 litres of naturally aspirated V8 soon shows 'em what torque is all
about.
Of course, for revenge they take you on a 500 mile trip without stopping for
fuel...
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
JackH
2005-10-21 20:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Pete M
That's because the ovloV had useable torque, over a nice, wide, lazy
spectrum.
Best way I've discovered of shutting up fans of diesels is taking
them for a spin in the Jensen.
7.2 litres of naturally aspirated V8 soon shows 'em what torque is all
about.
Of course, for revenge they take you on a 500 mile trip without stopping for
fuel...
...or without having to resort to finishing the journey on a flatbed truck.

--
JackH
Pete M
2005-10-22 22:11:54 UTC
Permalink
In news:***@individual.net,
JackH <***@yahoo.co.uk> decided to enlighten our sheltered souls
with a rant as follows
Post by JackH
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Pete M
That's because the ovloV had useable torque, over a nice, wide, lazy
spectrum.
Best way I've discovered of shutting up fans of diesels is taking
them for a spin in the Jensen.
7.2 litres of naturally aspirated V8 soon shows 'em what torque is
all about.
Of course, for revenge they take you on a 500 mile trip without
stopping for fuel...
...or without having to resort to finishing the journey on a flatbed truck.
Ok, so you're both right about the Jensen being thirsty and unreliable.

Still a nicer engine than any diesel though.
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
Adrian
2005-10-24 17:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by Pete M
That's because the ovloV had useable torque, over a nice, wide, lazy
spectrum.
Best way I've discovered of shutting up fans of diesels is taking
them for a spin in the Jensen.
7.2 litres of naturally aspirated V8 soon shows 'em what torque is
all about.
Of course, for revenge they take you on a 500 mile trip without
stopping for fuel...
<waves>
I can do 500miles plus without stopping for fuel - in a petrol auto.

Hell, I managed about 450 miles out of a tank over the weekend - with a
loaded car trailer on the back AND 30 or so miles of narrow steep hills
through North Yorks.

I came DOWN Sutton Bank, not up... Bit steep, that.

JackH
2005-10-21 19:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by JackH
Post by Tim S Kemp
therein lies the rub - with the limited amount of *power* low gears
must be very low to allow overtaking and quick accelleration from
rest.
You're obviously not driving the same TDIs I do...
The gearing seems as evenly spaced in my Passat as my Cavalier.
And... as for dropping down to overtake... *boggle*. ;-)
Heh - you're torquing about the prodigious talk of the PD engine and the
requirement not to change down - facilitated by the descending torque curve
meaning power is constant over a certain rev range, unlike petrol engines
that are normally tuned for power to increase with revs.
<small voice>

Mine's a 110bhp non PD model. :-)

One question... given your lamenting going down to a smaller car from your
Volvo, why didn't you get something like one of these, instead of the
A-Class?

--
JackH
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 19:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JackH
One question... given your lamenting going down to a smaller car from
your Volvo, why didn't you get something like one of these, instead
of the A-Class?
I had a certain amount of money, wanted an auto / cruise / climate, and was
looking for a low miles car that would be /shedloads/ cheaper to run. Last
diesel manual passat I drove wouldn't crack 39 mpg <ahem> despite my
colleague averaging 55 mpg when he drove us back...

The A class was just an off-the-wall choice, it was cheap, came with a years
main dealer warranty, had cat1 alarm, is mega cheap to insure and service
<not at dealers> and will be replaced when I see a decent upturn in business
and the economy in general - probably with something heavily turbocharged or
a V8. It's been commented as "not as bad as I expected" by a couple of
people who've tried it, even I'm pleasantly surprised how bad it isn't.

Part of me wishes I'd borrowed an extra 6 grand and bought either the A4 or
the Signum I saw, trouble would be I could see me getting low 30s all the
time in the signum (it was a 150 manual elite 1.9CDTI) and the A4 was
already at 70k miles (although it had bose, leather, auto, changer, sunroof,
computer, cruise etc...) , not a problem mechanically but it meant that it
was about to become a depreciation risk. The A class can't lose more than
6000 quid no matter how many miles I put on it or how long I keep it. My
Volvo lost 12000 quid in three years.

I've driven around in Micras and Jettas before when money's not been too
good, an A class for a year to three years won't kill me...
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
JackH
2005-10-21 20:20:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim S Kemp
Post by JackH
One question... given your lamenting going down to a smaller car from
your Volvo, why didn't you get something like one of these, instead
of the A-Class?
I had a certain amount of money, wanted an auto / cruise / climate, and was
looking for a low miles car that would be /shedloads/ cheaper to run. Last
diesel manual passat I drove wouldn't crack 39 mpg <ahem> despite my
colleague averaging 55 mpg when he drove us back...
*boggle*

I get 55 - 60mpg on a long 80ish run... more if I plod along a bit slower.

When I've cruised it along at around 55 - 60 one leisurely afternoon drive,
as I've said before, it reckoned it was doing 69mpg. I reckon on fill up,
it was about 5% optimistic in fuel computer terms.

What I do find, is, like the Golf TDI before it, it's quite laid back -
which means it's no real effort, to drive it
Post by Tim S Kemp
The A class was just an off-the-wall choice, it was cheap, came with a years
main dealer warranty, had cat1 alarm, is mega cheap to insure and service
<not at dealers> and will be replaced when I see a decent upturn in business
and the economy in general - probably with something heavily turbocharged or
a V8. It's been commented as "not as bad as I expected" by a couple of
people who've tried it, even I'm pleasantly surprised how bad it isn't.
Part of me wishes I'd borrowed an extra 6 grand and bought either the A4 or
the Signum I saw, trouble would be I could see me getting low 30s all the
time in the signum (it was a 150 manual elite 1.9CDTI) and the A4 was
already at 70k miles (although it had bose, leather, auto, changer, sunroof,
computer, cruise etc...) , not a problem mechanically but it meant that it
was about to become a depreciation risk. The A class can't lose more than
6000 quid no matter how many miles I put on it or how long I keep it. My
Volvo lost 12000 quid in three years.
I bought the Passat with 87k on it, for £3k - S reg (but hidden by a private
reg that came with the car), never had any bodywork, 16" Audi alloys (with
VW centre badges - they actually look like they're meant to be on the car),
and SE spec, so climate, electric windows, remote locking etc., and it came
with a half decent stereo too, although I've now put my MP3 HU in.

The plan is to, unless I have another dumbass episode where I consider
selling it to get something like a VTS, keep it three years - it should
still be worth around £2k min., if we then decide to get something newer -
the point is, I looked for about a month with the money just sitting in the
account burning a hole in my pocket, making sure I got the right car - 'buy
to sell', as they say, and I don't reckon given the nice comments we've had
about it since we got it, that we'll have any trouble parting with it for
sensible money when the time to say goodbye comes.

As it stands, looks like I might have something decidedly hairdresserish to
play with as of tomorrow, in need of a little TLC, and no, it's not an MR2
or MX5. :-)
Post by Tim S Kemp
I've driven around in Micras and Jettas before when money's not been too
good, an A class for a year to three years won't kill me...
I liked my Micra K11s... I just found them juicy for a supposed economy car.

--
JackH
Zathras
2005-10-21 12:19:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:44:15 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
<***@timkemp.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.
BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.
even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without a
turbocharger.
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
manufacturer (from your selection, for example):

BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg

Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
this:

BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg

(tops speeds are limited to 155, mpg is combined, all official BMW
figures today)

Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
--
Z
AstraVanMan
2005-10-21 12:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
<snip>
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.
BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.
even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without a
turbocharger.
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
(tops speeds are limited to 155, mpg is combined, all official BMW
figures today)
Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that the diesels have a turbocharger.
Add a turbocharger to the petrol and the performance argument goes out of
the window, and there is very little difference between the n/a petrol and
turbo petrol in terms of economy. On the flip side, it's often a *lot*
easier to get close to the manufacturer's published "combined economy"
figures in a diesel than a petrol, due to diesels being a lot more efficient
at idle, and on shorter journeys from cold, compared to petrols. Then
there's the cost thing, diesels cost more, and especially if you're buying
new, you need to be doing a fair few miles to make up the extra purchase
price in fuel savings. Though with increased demand, the difference is less
than it used to be.

Anyway, I'm taking bets on how long this thread's going to last. Get your
bets in now (well define the point for measuring as the number of posts
according to google at midnight on Hallowe'en night (31st October for the
ignorant)), to ***@whataloadofbollocks.co.uk.
--
Tell me your birthday! www.BornOnTheSameDay.co.uk
Called Pete? Join The Pete Collective NOW at www.thepetecollective.co.uk
Zathras
2005-10-21 13:56:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:53:26 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Zathras
<snip>
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.
BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.
even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without a
turbocharger.
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
(tops speeds are limited to 155, mpg is combined, all official BMW
figures today)
Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that the diesels have a turbocharger.
No I'm not. The above is what this manufacturer offers - it's no use
in a real world comparison to say to BMW 'Can I have a normally
aspirated 320d' - because they don't exist. You have to draw the line
somewhere.
Post by AstraVanMan
Add a turbocharger to the petrol and the performance argument goes out of
the window, and there is very little difference between the n/a petrol and
turbo petrol in terms of economy.
In which case, why do manufacturers (Saab being a notable exception)
not routinely turbo all their petrol engines?

<snip>
Post by AstraVanMan
Anyway, I'm taking bets on how long this thread's going to last. Get your
bets in now (well define the point for measuring as the number of posts
according to google at midnight on Hallowe'en night (31st October for the
Not many I'd bet. BMW have nicely fallen into line with my arguments
and provided some proof too! I'm not sure if many will want to waste
time arguing against actual documented realty with their opinions.
--
Z
Clive George
2005-10-21 14:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
I'm not sure if many will want to waste
time arguing against actual documented realty with their opinions.
Umm, you do realise you're posting on usenet, don't you?

cheers,
clive
Zathras
2005-10-21 14:24:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:01:47 +0100, "Clive George"
Post by Clive George
Post by Zathras
I'm not sure if many will want to waste
time arguing against actual documented realty with their opinions.
Umm, you do realise you're posting on usenet, don't you?
Ha Ha.. That's it PC off..down too the pub!!!! :-)
--
Z
Steve Walker
2005-10-21 14:46:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:53:26 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
Post by AstraVanMan
Add a turbocharger to the petrol and the performance argument goes out of
the window, and there is very little difference between the n/a petrol and
turbo petrol in terms of economy.
In which case, why do manufacturers (Saab being a notable exception)
not routinely turbo all their petrol engines?
Cost & simplicity, market, fashion and the availability of other ways of
getting more power. Some markets don't need the power, some people
prefer a naturally aspirated engine in a performance car and get that
either through more displacement or higher revs.
--
Steve Walker
AstraVanMan
2005-10-21 14:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Post by AstraVanMan
Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that the diesels have a turbocharger.
No I'm not. The above is what this manufacturer offers - it's no use
in a real world comparison to say to BMW 'Can I have a normally
aspirated 320d' - because they don't exist. You have to draw the line
somewhere.
Post by AstraVanMan
Add a turbocharger to the petrol and the performance argument goes out of
the window, and there is very little difference between the n/a petrol and
turbo petrol in terms of economy.
In which case, why do manufacturers (Saab being a notable exception)
not routinely turbo all their petrol engines?
They do with a lot of them, as do Volvo and VAG. And they're very popular,
for a good reason.
Post by Zathras
Post by AstraVanMan
Anyway, I'm taking bets on how long this thread's going to last. Get your
bets in now (well define the point for measuring as the number of posts
according to google at midnight on Hallowe'en night (31st October for the
Not many I'd bet. BMW have nicely fallen into line with my arguments
and provided some proof too! I'm not sure if many will want to waste
time arguing against actual documented realty with their opinions.
That's never stopped people before.
--
Tell me your birthday! www.BornOnTheSameDay.co.uk
Called Pete? Join The Pete Collective NOW at www.thepetecollective.co.uk
Johannes
2005-10-21 15:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:53:26 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Zathras
<snip>
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.
BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.
even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without a
turbocharger.
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
(tops speeds are limited to 155, mpg is combined, all official BMW
figures today)
Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that the diesels have a turbocharger.
No I'm not. The above is what this manufacturer offers - it's no use
in a real world comparison to say to BMW 'Can I have a normally
aspirated 320d' - because they don't exist. You have to draw the line
somewhere.
Post by AstraVanMan
Add a turbocharger to the petrol and the performance argument goes out of
the window, and there is very little difference between the n/a petrol and
turbo petrol in terms of economy.
In which case, why do manufacturers (Saab being a notable exception)
not routinely turbo all their petrol engines?
Indeed, that's a good question. Extreme turbo charging can be a pain because
of the dreaded turbo lag. But Saab's LPT method of turbo charging provides
better driveability at low revs, just what you need. It just fixes the weak
point of petrol engines. Many 660cc City cars in Japan are turbo charged,
that maintains reasonable performance with low engine weight. The new 1.4L
kompressor&turbo VW Golf promises performance + economy + refinement. A turbo
needs slightly more care than a NA engine, but if you stick to a few simple
rules, it will last just as long.
Johannes H Andersen
2005-10-22 08:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:53:26 GMT, "AstraVanMan"
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Zathras
<snip>
Post by Tim S Kemp
Petrol for performance, and refinement, even the best diesels aren't there
yet.
BMW 535d is best bhp/l, 272 bhp from a 3.0 twin turbo. Of course there's
plenty of 2.0 turbo petrol cars making 280bhp.
even VW's V10 diesel only makes 320bhp. BMW's V10 petrol makes 500 without a
turbocharger.
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
(tops speeds are limited to 155, mpg is combined, all official BMW
figures today)
Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that the diesels have a turbocharger.
No I'm not. The above is what this manufacturer offers - it's no use
in a real world comparison to say to BMW 'Can I have a normally
aspirated 320d' - because they don't exist. You have to draw the line
somewhere.
Post by AstraVanMan
Add a turbocharger to the petrol and the performance argument goes out of
the window, and there is very little difference between the n/a petrol and
turbo petrol in terms of economy.
In which case, why do manufacturers (Saab being a notable exception)
not routinely turbo all their petrol engines?
Further to my reply. Maybe it has something to do with marketing. A petrol
turbo is expected to be 'sporty', hence higher insurance class. In particular
if the car has a 'Turbo' badge. Petrol engines already have enough power,
so many see a turbo as an unnecessary complication. Only Saab has seen the
light with a comprehensive petrol turbo range; all turbos bar one entry
level car; and there are no 'Turbo' badges. Even this might have hurt their
marketing as many expect more than 4cyl engines in this class of cars. But
with fuel prices rising...
Steve Walker
2005-10-21 13:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
You missed a couple of things off:

BMW 530iSE £32645
BMW 535dSE £37335

BMW 320d £23225
BMW 320i £21390
Post by Zathras
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
BMW 540iSE £36985 306bhp 390Nm 0-62 in 6.2s Top speed 155 mph 25.7mpg
Post by Zathras
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
BMW 325iSE £25525 218bhp 250Nm 0-62 in 7.0s Top speed 152 mph 33.6mpg
--
Steve Walker
Zathras
2005-10-21 14:05:44 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:05:15 +0100, Steve Walker
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Zathras
Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
BMW 530iSE £32645
BMW 535dSE £37335
BMW 320d £23225
BMW 320i £21390
That's not the argument I'm making though. There are too many
variables not related to engine performance like the trim
specification and the price the manufacturer sets. I would expect the
quicker faster car to be more expensive even if the underlying costs
weren't.
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Zathras
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
BMW 540iSE £36985 306bhp 390Nm 0-62 in 6.2s Top speed 155 mph 25.7mpg
Probably goes to show why the 535d was so designated and not as a
530d. It's not that far off the 540i!!
Post by Steve Walker
Post by Zathras
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
BMW 325iSE £25525 218bhp 250Nm 0-62 in 7.0s Top speed 152 mph 33.6mpg
As I said, performance/price is not an accurate measure of performance
as price can be anything. Even so, a 320d isn't going to be that far
behind a 325i in normal road conditions.

I don't dispute your argument..it's just that it's not the one I was
attempting to make.
--
Z
AstraVanMan
2005-10-21 14:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
Post by Steve Walker
BMW 530iSE £32645
BMW 535dSE £37335
That's not the argument I'm making though. There are too many
variables not related to engine performance like the trim
specification and the price the manufacturer sets. I would expect the
quicker faster car to be more expensive even if the underlying costs
weren't.
Yes, but comparing like with like, the diesels are more expensive than
equivalently performing petrol counterparts. It's because they're better in
a lot of ways. Just as a penthouse apartment goes for more money than one
the size of a shoebox.
Post by Zathras
Post by Steve Walker
BMW 320d £23225
BMW 320i £21390
Post by Zathras
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
BMW 325iSE £25525 218bhp 250Nm 0-62 in 7.0s Top speed 152 mph 33.6mpg
As I said, performance/price is not an accurate measure of performance
as price can be anything. Even so, a 320d isn't going to be that far
behind a 325i in normal road conditions.
Ironically, putting the 325i in there proves nothing, as it's more expensive
than the 320d! Maybe the 323i isn't, but I'm not too sure what the
difference is between the 323i and the 325i.
--
Tell me your birthday! www.BornOnTheSameDay.co.uk
Called Pete? Join The Pete Collective NOW at www.thepetecollective.co.uk
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 19:13:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zathras
As I said, performance/price is not an accurate measure of performance
as price can be anything. Even so, a 320d isn't going to be that far
behind a 325i in normal road conditions.
Ahh now here's the real point.

London (central) on a clear day (such as a sunday) takes me 3-3 1/2 driving
hours from Hull if I'm not on an out and out mission to get there as quick
as possible. I've done times of this order in:

Rover 213, MG montego, VW Jetta 1.5, Sierra XR4x4, Rover 75 2.0V6, Rover
414, Volvo S40 1.8GDi, Volvo S60 2.0T (chipped), Mercedes A170CDi Auto,
Cavalier 1.7TD, Rover 620 Auto, Audi TT 225bhp, VW Golf 1.8 GTi, Vauxhall
Corsa 1.0 12v, BMW 540, mitsubishi spacewagon.

So in normal road conditions (ie driving in a manner unlikely to get you
shot, jailed or killed) a 1.0 12v corsa is as quick as a BMW 540i.

There is no point whatsoever in buying a 335d if you drive like a nun all
the time, a 320d will suit you better, in fact unless you crack 30k miles
p/a to pay back the fuel cost a 318 would be better. And quieter. Because
99.9% of most peoples driving time is spent using less than 80% of the cars
power.

As you can see from the list above - I've driven all sorts of stuff on the
same run (just noticed, never taken a Zafira to London, probably never will
as ours goes in December) and they can all do it in the same time - cruising
to the end of the M1 at 90-95 then down the A5. Scarily the corsa averaged
33mpg, about the same as the 540i - which was far nicer.
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
David C
2005-10-24 14:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:13:54 +0100, "Tim S Kemp"
Post by Tim S Kemp
Ahh now here's the real point.
London (central) on a clear day (such as a sunday) takes me 3-3 1/2 driving
hours from Hull if I'm not on an out and out mission to get there as quick
Rover 213, MG montego, VW Jetta 1.5, Sierra XR4x4, Rover 75 2.0V6, Rover
414, Volvo S40 1.8GDi, Volvo S60 2.0T (chipped), Mercedes A170CDi Auto,
Cavalier 1.7TD, Rover 620 Auto, Audi TT 225bhp, VW Golf 1.8 GTi, Vauxhall
Corsa 1.0 12v, BMW 540, mitsubishi spacewagon.
So in normal road conditions (ie driving in a manner unlikely to get you
shot, jailed or killed) a 1.0 12v corsa is as quick as a BMW 540i.
There is no point whatsoever in buying a 335d if you drive like a nun all
the time, a 320d will suit you better, in fact unless you crack 30k miles
p/a to pay back the fuel cost a 318 would be better. And quieter. Because
99.9% of most peoples driving time is spent using less than 80% of the cars
power.
As you can see from the list above - I've driven all sorts of stuff on the
same run (just noticed, never taken a Zafira to London, probably never will
as ours goes in December) and they can all do it in the same time - cruising
to the end of the M1 at 90-95 then down the A5. Scarily the corsa averaged
33mpg, about the same as the 540i - which was far nicer.
Two points...

Are you not a little apprehensive re. speeding fines / points when
cruising faster than the "un-official" motorway speed limit?

Since I am but a poor pensioner, c/w with 3 points on't licence, I
prefer to stay at / under 80 mph where feasible, since I'm not
convinced that the cost of cruising 10 mph faster for 120? miles is
worth the minimal time saving. ( 10 minutes for 80 or 90 mph cruising
for 120 miles ).

(Doesn't the inverse square law apply when calculating time savings &
speed increases?)

Cheers, David C.
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 19:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Zathras wrote:
]> Except that you're not comparing like with like engines - cc and
Ahhhh but
Post by Zathras
BMW 535d 2993cc 272hp 560Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 35.3mpg
BMW 530i 2996cc 258hp 300Nm 0-62 in 6.5s Top speed 155mph 32.1mpg
Turbochargers. Sorry, failed comparison.
Post by Zathras
Meanwhile, back on planet earth 'Joe Public' (who doesn't buy many
extreme cars) will be much more likely to be considering things like
BMW 320d 1995cc 163hp 340Nm 0-62 in 8.3s Top speed 140 mph 49.6mpg
BMW 320i 1995cc 150hp 200Nm 0-62 in 9.0s Top speed 137 mph 38.2 mpg
Turbochargers. Sorry, failed comparison.
Post by Zathras
Do you see where I'm coming from yet?
Yes, and you're wrong. Very wrong.

Let's throw turbochargers into the equation.

BMW don't do petrol turbos - but there's a rumoured 335badged turbo petrol
3l tipped for 330bhp and 6s to 60.
So lets look at... erm... Volvo S60
D5 180bhp 400Nm 2401cc diesel 0-62 8.2 top 143
T5 260bhp 350Nm 2401cc petrol 0-62 6.5 top 155 limited

Audi A4
2.0T FSi Petrol 0-60 7.2 200ps 280Nm top 149
2.0TDi 0-60 9.7, 140ps, 320Nm, top 131

or how about something older and more mundane
Rover 620 ti 197bhp, 240Nm, 0-60 7.0, top 143
Rover 620 SDi 103bhp, 210 Nm, 0-60 10.8, top 115

Want to compare any more????
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
davek
2005-10-19 16:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
Try a Peugeot/Citroen hdi.
That should convince.
DaveK.
Adrian
2005-10-19 16:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by davek
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old
diesels. So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old
shape. It was very unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was
a diesel car. So I'm still not convinced...
Try a Peugeot/Citroen hdi.
That should convince.
The C4 VTS+ HDi that I drove the other weekend was *damned* good - but it
was still DEFINITELY diseasel.

Very very good for a diesel, but definitely a diesel.

BIG fat wodge of torque - across a small rev range. 1st so low that you're
immediately changing up, but 2nd just *that* bit too high to comfortably
pull away.

Quiet and smooth - until you did something *slightly* unusual. When we got
back here, I drove past the house, turned round in the junction 100yds up
the hill, 1st, few revs, over-run down to the house. Jesus wept. It's
definitely a diesel. I SAID, IT'S A DIESEL! PARDON? MORE TEA, VICAR? YES,
DEAR, LOVELY DAY FOR IT.
tollermccallum
2005-10-19 18:51:31 UTC
Permalink
I know someone with a W reg vectra 2.0 diesel and although OK i don't
think i'd have one, slow as stink setting off but once it's moving
theres nothing to moan about although it is a bit noisy in the cab. On
the other hand my father in law has an audi A4 1.9TDi and thats
fantastic, it's still obviously a diesel from the noise but it's got
plenty of power and is incredibly refined plus it does about 600 miles
to a tank, just wating till the day i can have one :)
Guy King
2005-10-19 20:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by tollermccallum
audi A4 1.9TDi and thats
fantastic, it's still obviously a diesel from the noise but it's got
plenty of power and is incredibly refined plus it does about 600 miles
to a tank, just wating till the day i can have one :)
You'd like the 2.5 TDi. Slides gently around gracefully at legal speeds
doing around 1500 rpm. I got nearly 800 miles out of a tank a while ago.
--
Skipweasel
Never knowingly understood. (Ivor Cutler)
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-19 20:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by davek
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car.
So I'm still not convinced...
Try a Peugeot/Citroen hdi.
That should convince.
DaveK.
Naah - Merc S320CDi... works every time. Or an XJ6.
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
Zathras
2005-10-19 20:40:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:07:49 GMT, Johannes
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
..and neither were Vauxhall so now they tend to use a lot of Fiat JTD
engines even after the breakdown of their original partnership plans.
Next time, try a modern diesel - they are nothing like old diesels!
--
Z
T i m
2005-10-20 07:54:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:40:21 GMT, Zathras
Post by Zathras
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:07:49 GMT, Johannes
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
..and neither were Vauxhall so now they tend to use a lot of Fiat JTD
engines even after the breakdown of their original partnership plans.
Next time, try a modern diesel - they are nothing like old diesels!
Hi All,

My first exposure to diesel (apart from sliding about on the stuff as
a motorcyclist) was in this Peugeot powered (if that's the right term
'powered' <g>) Rover 218SD. (1.9 non turbo)

It was 'given' (well 100 quid) to me by a mate (I know 'some mate'
<g>) but I'll have to say for my purposes it's pretty good.

Going from a 2LGL Sierra estate it was quite a shock performance wise
(accelleration and towing mainly but also handeling (by comparison))
but a bigger shock was how much further 20 quids worth of fuel took me
.. like double the distance!

Never had power steering, electric sunroof, electric windows before ..
and with 175k on the clock it still looks ok and does what it says on
the tin?

Not as much room in the back as the ole Sierra though .. mind you .. I
currently have all the seats out of a 2D Metro in the back of the
Rover .. (waiting to go in the kitcar ) ;-)

My brother in law has a diesel Merc (summat) and I'm pretty sure you
wouldn't know *that* was a diesel from inside ... (apart from by the
fuel gauge that is) ;-)

All the best ..

T i m
Zog The Undeniable
2005-10-19 18:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
CO2 taxation, basically. But they can be quite nice motorway cars
because of the higher torque and hence gearing, and they don't suffer
from the problems associated with the HT system on a petrol car.

Their biggest Achilles heel, apart from a dubious lifetime cost
advantage and nasty PM10 particulate emissions, is people putting petrol
in the tank. This b0rks a common-rail diesel to the extent that you
might have to scrap it if it's a few years old and not worth the £4000
repair.
robin
2005-10-20 09:28:51 UTC
Permalink
i hade a mercedes e class diesel for 2 years

great car, did 50mpg plus to gallon on motoroway
servce every 18-20k miles

smooth ,quite & reliable
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old diesels.
So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old shape. It was very
unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this was a diesel car. So I'm
still not convinced...
Pete M
2005-10-20 14:29:12 UTC
Permalink
In news:***@smash-spam-sizefitter.com,
Johannes <***@smash-spam-sizefitter.com> decided to enlighten our sheltered
souls with a rant as follows
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old
diesels. So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old
shape. It was very unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this
was a diesel car. So I'm still not convinced...
"The van does a minimum of 45mpg. Go figure"
"All have power, refinement and *economy*."
"I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for *cost saving* "

I think that's the answer then. Diesels are owned by cheapskates. The
refinement bit is bollocks.
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
shazzbat
2005-10-20 14:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete M
souls with a rant as follows
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old
diesels. So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old
shape. It was very unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this
was a diesel car. So I'm still not convinced...
"The van does a minimum of 45mpg. Go figure"
"All have power, refinement and *economy*."
"I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for *cost saving* "
I think that's the answer then. Diesels are owned by cheapskates. The
refinement bit is bollocks.
And of course the wonderful aroma. One of my daughters friends became
obsessed with diesel when she was pregnant, and whenever she comes round
she's clinging onto the sleeve of my overalls sniffing to see if I've been
working on a diesel.

Pisses the wife right off it does :-))

Steve
Guy King
2005-10-20 15:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by shazzbat
And of course the wonderful aroma.
Diesel on a spring morning reminds me of many happy Eastertime holidays
on a narrowboat.
--
Skipweasel
Never knowingly understood. (Ivor Cutler)
Guy King
2005-10-20 15:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete M
Diesels are owned by cheapskates.
That's me!
--
Skipweasel
Never knowingly understood. (Ivor Cutler)
T i m
2005-10-20 18:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy King
Post by Pete M
Diesels are owned by cheapskates.
That's me!
Isn't that all of us who prefer to spend our money on other things?
;-)

*I* also don't need / want a gas guzzling / new / fast / fancy / 4x4
vehicle is because:

1) I live in London
2) I live / drive 'on road'
3) I have a large penis ;-)
4) I park on the road
5) I want to keep my licence clean for another 25 years
6) If I want thrills I go to the fairground
7) I don't (and never have / never want to) commute 50+ miles each day
by car (or my 1000cc motorbike for that matter) ;-)
8) I don't drive for 'fun' (obviously) ;-)

All the best ;-)

T i m
Chris Bolus
2005-10-20 19:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by T i m
Post by Guy King
Post by Pete M
Diesels are owned by cheapskates.
That's me!
Isn't that all of us who prefer to spend our money on other things?
;-)
*I* also don't need / want a gas guzzling / new / fast / fancy / 4x4
7) I don't (and never have / never want to) commute 50+ miles each day
by car (or my 1000cc motorbike for that matter) ;-)
My daily round trip is nearly 50 miles hence the beat-up but reliable
old diesel... (that doesn't include the kids' taxi runs which can add as
much again)

Aprt from the fact I don't have to worry about it getting trashed in the
school carpark, the other attraction for me of having old cars is that I
can afford more of 'em, so I always have a choice of ride!
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by email)
----1961 Austin A40 Farina----1966 Triumph Herald Estate---
---1967 Riley Elf---1965 Hillman Minx---1969 Morris Minor--
-1972 Mini Clubman estate--1957 Standard 8--1979 Ford Capri
********** Please don't email in HTML! **********
T i m
2005-10-22 00:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bolus
Post by T i m
7) I don't (and never have / never want to) commute 50+ miles each day
by car (or my 1000cc motorbike for that matter) ;-)
My daily round trip is nearly 50 miles hence the beat-up but reliable
old diesel... (that doesn't include the kids' taxi runs which can add as
much again)
"Taxi" .. "Dad, can you take us all to the pictures ... oh and pick us
up please.. ". I'd rather that than have her on the bus late at night
.. even with her mates ..
Post by Chris Bolus
Aprt from the fact I don't have to worry about it getting trashed in the
school carpark, the other attraction for me of having old cars is that I
can afford more of 'em, so I always have a choice of ride!
I like the logic ;-)

Don't get me wrong .. I *like* mechanical engineering / engines /
technology etc (even built a kit car and have always maintained all my
own vehicles) but have never lusted after anything remotely 'sporty',
no pictures of cars on the wall etc (offshore powerboats / girls
maybe). Something to so with living in London maybe? ;-(

By brother in law and I (and respective kids) recently did some
off-road (in his old Disco) and watched one of the rounds of the WTC
at Silverstone and Drag racing at 'The Pod'. It was all 'ok' as a day
out and something new for the kids but the best day was a round of the
British Superbikes at Brands .. (and it got a 10:10 vote by my 15yr
old daughter in spite of it pi$$ing down with rain most the day and
one of the riders getting killed) ;-(

All the best ..

T i m
Chris Bolus
2005-10-23 17:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by T i m
Post by Chris Bolus
Post by T i m
7) I don't (and never have / never want to) commute 50+ miles each day
by car (or my 1000cc motorbike for that matter) ;-)
My daily round trip is nearly 50 miles hence the beat-up but reliable
old diesel... (that doesn't include the kids' taxi runs which can add as
much again)
"Taxi" .. "Dad, can you take us all to the pictures ... oh and pick us
up please.. ". I'd rather that than have her on the bus late at night
.. even with her mates ..
If it were that simple! Son plays ice hockey and training is 22 miles
away. At the same time youngest daughter is swimming., near home so 2
cars required. Field hockey also plays a part, and both these sports
have weekend games which can involve 30-mile trips, even when a bus is
provided! Plus other daughter is a singer/guitarist so some of her taxi
trips involve carrying an obscene amount of sound equipment (if "2.4k
rig" means anything to you you'll understand!)
--
Regards, Chris (Please take out my car to reply by email)
----1961 Austin A40 Farina----1966 Triumph Herald Estate---
---1967 Riley Elf---1965 Hillman Minx---1969 Morris Minor--
-1972 Mini Clubman estate--1957 Standard 8--1979 Ford Capri
********** Please don't email in HTML! **********
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-23 17:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Bolus
If it were that simple! Son plays ice hockey and training is 22 miles
away. At the same time youngest daughter is swimming., near home so 2
cars required. Field hockey also plays a part, and both these sports
have weekend games which can involve 30-mile trips, even when a bus is
provided! Plus other daughter is a singer/guitarist so some of her
taxi trips involve carrying an obscene amount of sound equipment (if
"2.4k rig" means anything to you you'll understand!)
My 2k rig fitted nicely in the boot of the volvo, without seat folding, that
was a saloon. My 3.6k (plus monitors) fits in the Zafira (18" subs) but
needs seats down - not tried getting it in the A class, reckon it won't go,
but looking at a smaller higher output system based on 15" subs anyhow.

The 2k is the one I travel with mostly though - halve it for smaller gigs
and it'll fit in the back of the A class.
--
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving / And
revolving at 900 miles an hour / That's orbiting at 19 miles a second,
so it's reckoned, / A sun that is the source of all our power. / The
sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see, / Are moving at a
million miles a day / In an outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
/ Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way.
Johannes H Andersen
2005-10-20 17:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete M
souls with a rant as follows
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old
diesels. So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old
shape. It was very unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this
was a diesel car. So I'm still not convinced...
"The van does a minimum of 45mpg. Go figure"
"All have power, refinement and *economy*."
"I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for *cost saving* "
I think that's the answer then. Diesels are owned by cheapskates. The
refinement bit is bollocks.
Are you Jeremy Clarkson?
Pete M
2005-10-20 20:51:14 UTC
Permalink
In news:***@sizefitter.com,
Johannes H Andersen <***@sizefitter.com> decided to enlighten our sheltered
souls with a rant as follows
Post by Johannes H Andersen
sheltered souls with a rant as follows
Post by Johannes
We hear so much about modern diesels; that they are nothing like old
diesels. So recently I went on a taxi ride in a Vectra 2.0 TDI old
shape. It was very unrefined; you had absolutely no doubt that this
was a diesel car. So I'm still not convinced...
"The van does a minimum of 45mpg. Go figure"
"All have power, refinement and *economy*."
"I've always held the opinion, and voiced the opinion,
that the only reason to go diesel is for *cost saving* "
I think that's the answer then. Diesels are owned by cheapskates. The
refinement bit is bollocks.
Are you Jeremy Clarkson?
He only has a slight dislike of diesels compared to mine.

I've driven hundreds of the bloody things, and so far found about two that
I'd class as "tolerable" which are the Xantia TD and the Merc 270CDi.

The Golf PD motor I thought was awful, the BMW 530d (new shape) was laggy as
hell and sounded 'orrible, the TDCi 130 Mondeo went well - provided you
rowed it along with the gearlever.

The Xantia was a decent family car - the suspension counteracted the weight
of Dr D's Evil invention, and the Merc E270CDi was nice enough, although it
still did the shudder when you switched it off. Hardly fitting for a luxury
car having it shudder and vibrate.

Petrol with LPG for the cheapskates is the answer. Environmentally better
than diesel, nicer engines, nicer cars, nicer world.

The only reason for diesels is if you're skint enough to have to run them on
veg oil / kerosene. Then there's an excuse.
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
AstraVanMan
2005-10-21 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete M
Post by Johannes H Andersen
Are you Jeremy Clarkson?
He only has a slight dislike of diesels compared to mine.
I've driven hundreds of the bloody things, and so far found about two that
I'd class as "tolerable" which are the Xantia TD and the Merc 270CDi.
Is the Merc 270CDi a 5-pot or V6? I ask, as I'm assuming it's a 2.7 litre
lump, and the Sprinter 316CDi has a 2.7 5-potter.
Post by Pete M
The Golf PD motor I thought was awful
Too laggy/peaky? Would I be right in thinking that the 90/110bhp older
style TDIs are a better bet than the 115/130bhp PD engines, from a
driveability POV?
--
Tell me your birthday! www.BornOnTheSameDay.co.uk
Called Pete? Join The Pete Collective NOW at www.thepetecollective.co.uk
Pete M
2005-10-21 11:24:54 UTC
Permalink
In news:cK36f.6968$***@newsfe6-win.ntli.net,
AstraVanMan <***@Whataloadofforeskinbollocks.co.uk> decided to enlighten
our sheltered souls with a rant as follows
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Pete M
Post by Johannes H Andersen
Are you Jeremy Clarkson?
He only has a slight dislike of diesels compared to mine.
I've driven hundreds of the bloody things, and so far found about
two that I'd class as "tolerable" which are the Xantia TD and the
Merc 270CDi.
Is the Merc 270CDi a 5-pot or V6? I ask, as I'm assuming it's a 2.7
litre lump, and the Sprinter 316CDi has a 2.7 5-potter.
Tis a 5 pot.
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Pete M
The Golf PD motor I thought was awful
Too laggy/peaky? Would I be right in thinking that the 90/110bhp
older style TDIs are a better bet than the 115/130bhp PD engines,
from a driveability POV?
Laggy *and* peaky, much in the style of every modern diesel. Loads of torque
occasionally, but bugger all most of the time.
--
Pete M

Alfa 155
Ford Capri (still broked)
Porsche 911 3.2 (For Sale - ebay soon)

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain
Tim S Kemp
2005-10-21 18:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by AstraVanMan
Post by Pete M
Post by Johannes H Andersen
Are you Jeremy Clarkson?
He only has a slight dislike of diesels compared to mine.
I've driven hundreds of the bloody things, and so far found about
two that I'd class as "tolerable" which are the Xantia TD and the
Merc 270CDi.
Is the Merc 270CDi a 5-pot or V6? I ask, as I'm assuming it's a 2.7
litre lump, and the Sprinter 316CDi has a 2.7 5-potter.
The old (<2005) 270CDi is a 5 pot - I think it's a modular (220 4 pot, 270 5
pot, 320 6 pot).

The new 270CDi is a V6, detuned from the new and very good (quitest I've
heard) 320CDi V6.
--
All of my hate cannot be FOUND
I will not be drowned by your thoughtless scheming
so you can try to tear me down
Beat me to the ground
I will see you screaming
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...