Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Diesels...... rip?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Augeo wrote: »
    The shocks and other parts mentioned are consumables, the extra weight of a diesel engine would have minimal effect on wear compared to mileage, road surface and how the car is driven.

    I did say when they go over 100k. If you think the heavier diesel engine doesn't cause those parts to wear faster how come any petrol car I owned never needed those parts replaced at the same mileage?
    1. The cost of maintenance, wear-and-tear of tyres and high cost of consumables favour petrol cars also because petrol engines are lighter and less complicated. Petrol wins hands down.

    http://www.moneylife.in/article/petrol-or-diesel-cars/37056.html


  • Options
    #33
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    jca wrote: »
    I have a 1 4 TSI myself and at 2000 rpm at 100km/h

    Ach she'd be at slightly more than 2k at 62mph, JCA. Especially if she's hauling around a Passat


  • Options
    #34
    Toyotafanboi
    Registered Users Posts: 12,917 ✭✭✭✭Toyotafanboi


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Ach she'd be at slightly more than 2k at 62mph, JCA. Especially if she's hauling around a Passat

    Not neccessarily. Our 1.4 turbo astra which is a heavy enough car is at 2k, maybe 2200 @ 100km/h, in fact the best of the torque is over by 3k rpm


  • Options
    #35
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Toyotafanboi wrote: »
    Not neccessarily. Our 1.4 turbo astra which is a heavy enough car is at 2k, maybe 2200 @ 100km/h, in fact the best of the torque is over by 3k rpm
    You'd think the turbo would need to be constantly boosting to provide torque at that engine speed and load. I wonder would it be more economical to drop a gear and reduce the load on the engine and hence reduce the amount of boost provided. (eg my turbo is the older wastegated type, it doesn't spool up unless engine load exceeds a certain amount. Not sure if this applies to newer variable vane types). hmmm, just wondering out loud really


  • Options
    #36
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭jca


    Jesus. wrote: »
    Ach she'd be at slightly more than 2k at 62mph, JCA. Especially if she's hauling around a Passat

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/vsnfj79633pl98m/2014-11-19%2014.55.30.jpg?dl=0

    Will probably get a rolliking for taking pics while driving:rolleyes: Hence the dubious quality...:o


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    I forgot you might have 6 gears. DOH!


  • Options
    #38
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    I wonder would it be more economical to drop a gear and reduce the load on the engine and hence reduce the amount of boost provided.

    Maybe, maybe not.

    I was told by a number of fellas on here that changing up at 2k in my particular car wasn't as economical as revving it a bit more. Did two brim to brim tank calculations and it turned out just as I thought it would. My average mpg had gone down by 4 despite doing the very same runs/speeds etc.

    You can't beat the "feel" you get off a car. Never mind all the gauges and other sh*te.


  • Options
    #39
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Out of interest, what does the mpg readout show for the 2 situations?
    Its a testament to variable geometry turbos if it can spool up at those revs.

    Must checkout the rpm of my own yoke at 100k. I've no mpg display, thank god! I've never changed up at 2k in my life...

    Ahh jesus im gettinging mixed up betweem jca and plain jesus now. Jesus dont be dragging diesel into this conversation jesus!


  • Options
    #40
    jca
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,585 ✭✭✭jca


    Jesus. wrote: »
    I forgot you might have 6 gears. DOH!

    7 actually... That's where it gets the economy from I'd imagine. It'll hold 7th right down to 60 km/h going through a village speed limit etc. and if I'm gentle with the right foot it'll stay in 7th right up to 100 km/h.


  • Options
    #41
    Jesus.
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,794 ✭✭✭Jesus.


    jca wrote: »
    7 actually

    That's cheating!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    I did say when they go over 100k. If you think the heavier diesel engine doesn't cause those parts to wear faster how come any petrol car I owned never needed those parts replaced at the same mileage?


    http://www.moneylife.in/article/petrol-or-diesel-cars/37056.html

    How many diesels have you had?
    At what mileage do suspension components on petrol cars wear?
    No petrol cars experience suspension issues up to 100k miles?


  • Options
    #43
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Augeo wrote: »
    How many diesels have you had?
    At what mileage do suspension components on petrol cars wear?
    No petrol cars experience suspension issues up to 100k miles?

    3, all were harder on the front tyres, bushes and front shocks.

    Have had a Rover 75 diesel, MG ZT diesel, MG ZT petrol. The ZT diesel needed new shocks before 80k, the rover 75 was around the same (I was given an a4 folder with 9 years if meticulous receipts over 140k miles when I bought it) and the ZT petrol only needed suspension work after 115k because of a few bad potholes in Kerry. Wishbone bushing went on both diesels, still fine on the petrol.

    Despite the petrol being 190hp vs the 130 of the diesel, it got better wear out of 220/40/18 Potenza s001s than the 225/45/17 s001s on the rover 75.

    Of course, I'm not sure how many of the new small diesels have ironblocks anymore, Mazda for example share a common block between petrol and diesel.


  • Options
    #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Is the BMW diesel engine much heavier than the petrol rover? Your comparison is pointless unless they were all driven the same on the same roads btw, like for like if you know what I mean :)

    For your tyre example, what were the torque figures ?


  • Options
    #45
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Augeo wrote: »
    Is the BMW diesel engine much heavier than the petrol rover? Your comparison is pointless unless they were all driven the same on the same roads btw, like for like if you know what I mean :)

    For your tyre example, what were the torque figures ?

    No two cars are every driven on the same roads, but given all three lived lives mostly on UK motorways and I've yet to come across a badly paved English road (I'm sure they exist, simply elusive/shy), I don't think 'service life' is going to differ massively.

    (One was owned by a guy who worked in TV production in London and commuted up and down to Manchester weekly, another by a just retiring company exec who used it for visiting clients across the UK, and the last by a sales rep based in Swansea)

    245N-m for the v6, 260 for the ZT diesel, 310 for the 75 diesel


  • Options
    #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Tragedy wrote: »
    .......

    245N-m for the v6 ......... 310 for the 75 diesel

    There is a reason for the increased tyre wear that you hadn't apparently considered ;)
    Hth


  • Options
    #47
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Augeo wrote: »
    There is a reason for the increased tyre wear that you hadn't apparently considered ;)
    That I rag the **** out of the v6 and drove the diesels in a relaxed enough manner?

    Yes.

    Max torque is just that, maximum. part of the reason I like diesels is that they have a lazy way of driving, and I drive them accordingly.

    Regardless, can you find a car where the diesel version produces less torque than the comparable petrol version?

    No?

    Point invalid.


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The diesel puts the torque down without you ragging it;)


  • Options
    #49
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Augeo wrote: »
    The diesel puts the torque down without you ragging it;)

    It puts maximum torque down any time I press the accelerator? Wow, and I always thought that the accelerator was graduated.

    I guess I must drive around at 4750 RPM and 120 mph too.
    Right?


  • Options
    #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You didn't notice the 20% extra torque? Wow, or the fact its there low in the rev range ? Wow.
    Presumably you had gears too. Wow

    You didn't mention the torque initially and in an attempt to avoid looking like a moron you claim you ragged the petrol one all the time,, feeble effort tbh.

    Also I see you claim you got 300 miles from 60l of petrol usually, urban driving, ragging it ... Lol, light footed... Very light footed.

    You now claim more torque in a diesel is invalid regarding tyre wear as they invariably have more torque than comparable petrols ? Point invalid. Lol. Nutter.


  • Options
    #51
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Augeo wrote: »
    How many diesels have you had?
    At what mileage do suspension components on petrol cars wear?
    No petrol cars experience suspension issues up to 100k miles?
    3 diesels and 5 petrol over 30 years.

    I said I've a mazda 6 over 200,000 kms 120,000 miles on the first suspension, bushes, cv joint, shocks, wishbone etc. The diesels had all those parts changed well before that mileage.

    How many cars petrol and diesel have you had?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    3 diesels and 5 petrol over 30 years.

    I said I've a mazda 6 over 200,000 kms 120,000 miles on the first suspension, bushes, cv joint, shocks, wishbone etc. The diesels had all those parts changed well before that mileage.

    How many cars petrol and diesel have you had?
    Didn't realise that posting here was a privilege granted by you?

    I have had 7 petrols and 6 diesels over the past 3-4 years. Am I allowed to answer?

    If I meet your criteria, I must disagree with your point. Items like the above are consumables or are wear and tear items. The wear is determined by the driving style of the user and the road types that it is driven on. An extra couple of kg in the engine bay makes about as much difference as if the driver is fat or thin!

    I've changed suspension parts in petrol cars at 80k miles, I've had a diesel with 425k miles on the clock and no suspension work done or needed. The balljoints were starting to go but after 425k miles, I'd have dodgy knees too!


  • Options
    #53
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    ...I've changed suspension parts in petrol cars at 80k miles, I've had a diesel with 425k miles on the clock and no suspension work done or needed. The balljoints were starting to go but after 425k miles, I'd have dodgy knees too!

    I'd have to agree. I run a pretty heavy (petrol) engine myself, and have had no significant issues with shocks et al out front after 150,000 miles.


  • Options
    #54
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    Didn't realise that posting here was a privilege granted by you?

    I have had 7 petrols and 6 diesels over the past 3-4 years. Am I allowed to answer?

    If I meet your criteria, I must disagree with your point. Items like the above are consumables or are wear and tear items. The wear is determined by the driving style of the user and the road types that it is driven on. An extra couple of kg in the engine bay makes about as much difference as if the driver is fat or thin!

    I've changed suspension parts in petrol cars at 80k miles, I've had a diesel with 425k miles on the clock and no suspension work done or needed. The balljoints were starting to go but after 425k miles, I'd have dodgy knees too!
    Jaysus you have a chip on your shoulder :rolleyes: That poster asked me the question and I answered him so what's the harm in asking him the same question?

    Your after going through a lot of cars in a very short time how can you compare them?
    jimgoose wrote: »
    I'd have to agree. I run a pretty heavy (petrol) engine myself, and have had no significant issues with shocks et al out front after 150,000 miles.
    What car is it?


  • Options
    #55
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    ...What car is it?

    1999 S-Type, 3l V6.


  • Options
    #56
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    Jaysus you have a chip on your shoulder :rolleyes: That poster asked me the question and I answered him so what's the harm in asking him the same question?

    Your after going through a lot of cars in a very short time how can you compare them?

    What car is it?
    Chip on my shoulder?
    You were the one who said a poster didnt qualify because in your eyes he didnt own enough cars!

    I still have 5 of them. I do a lot of miles in anything I have as a daily so I shift them after 6-12 months max.


  • Options
    #57
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    jimgoose wrote: »
    1999 S-Type, 3l V6.
    A v6 is more compact than a straight engine if you compared it with a v6 diesel you would have a big weight difference.


  • Options
    #58
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »
    Chip on my shoulder?
    You were the one who said a poster didnt qualify because in your eyes he didnt own enough cars!
    Really, where did I say that?


  • Options
    #59
    jimgoose
    Registered Users Posts: 20,174 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    A v6 is more compact than a straight engine if you compared it with a v6 diesel you would have a big weight difference.

    The equivalent diesel unit for that car is the 2.7l AJD-V6 twin-turbo, which, thanks to a compacted graphite iron block, weighs a whopping 15kg more than the 3l petrol. Much like me after a decent lunch! :pac:


  • Options
    #60
    Cleveland Hot Pocket
    Registered Users Posts: 5,193 ✭✭✭Cleveland Hot Pocket


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    Really, where did I say that?
    The post I quoted above.
    Where the emboldened line shows that your line of questioning leads to my interpretation above.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    renofan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 866 ✭✭✭renofan


    All I can add to the debate is that I've never owned a diesel. I was in England for a week a few weeks ago and hired a car. Was given a new 1.2 petrol turbo Skoda Rapid. All I can say is I hated it. The jerkiness of the turbo (maybe I wasn't used to it but even after a week of driving it everytime I changed gear the car used to jerk a bit), it felt cheap and plasticky and the electronic steering has to be the worst I've experienced.

    I drive a 2000 1.8 20v Audi A4 and would take it anyday over the Rapid. Plus I get around 39-41mpg from the Audi. Didn't bother seeing how the Rapid did but I did have to get the revs up on the motorways. Dreadful car.


Advertisement