Sexiest Diesel??

keefg

I think so.....Audi R8 V12 TDI (Concept)

colm_mcm

I quite like this:




http://www.wheelswithinwales.co.uk/articles/20071210

The Gambler 101

wat would nt you do for that car??

Armin_Tamzarian

http://car-news.roadfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/Audi-R10-TDI-Race-Car.jpg

colm_mcm

The Gambler 101 wrote: »

wat would nt you do for that car??

pay the asking price?

Barr

I cant see the point of supercars with diesel engines.

Whoes going to buy them ?

colm_mcm

rich farmers?

If 5000 people buy an A4 diesel as a result of seeing this concept, then their work is done.

bazz26

Half the fun of a super car is listning to the growl from the petrol engine. It just doesn't sound the same with a diesel.

JJJJNR

I've heard it and it sounds like a fighter jet. its on you tube.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ChGGWY_CwO0&NR=1

Barr

JJJJNR wrote: »

I've heard it and it sounds like a fighter jet. its on you tube.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ChGGWY_CwO0&NR=1

Ive heard more noise from 1 litre corsa's with big bore exhauts

I wonder what it sounds like when the engine is idling and cold .. prehaps any other diesel ?

Beekay

JJJJNR wrote: »

I've heard it and it sounds like a fighter jet. its on you tube.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ChGGWY_CwO0&NR=1

Thats a great sound....:D:D:D:D

keefg

Barr wrote: »

I cant see the point of supercars with diesel engines.

Whoes going to buy them ?

Their aim maybe to show them as "Green" supercars, or just to showcase the advancement of diesel technology.

They have the looks of their petrol brothers but offer more than 15 gallons to the mile fuel consumption.

Quotes from Audi at launch:

“We are challenging the final piece of conventional wisdom [about diesel engine cars],” said Audi AG Chairman Rupert Stadler. The R8 TDI concept’s 6.0-liter V12 twin-turbo engine develops 500 horsepower and 737 lb-ft of torque. It nails the 0-62 mph sprint in 4.2 seconds, with a top speed of more than 186 mph.

Fuel economy may not be top of the criteria list for supercar buyers, but the R8 V12 TDI concept scores even here, testing at 24 mpg.

How clean is it? Clean enough to meet the ultra-tough California emissions standards that still defeat many lesser diesels.

With the standard R8 already on sale and very well-regarded, it’s entirely possible that this concept could be produced, albeit at low volume. But it’s equally important to Audi as a way of making a point about the potential of diesel engines to deliver economy, cleanliness, and performance.

With a diesel in the R8, "the sky is the limit," said an Audi board member.

dr.bollocko

I can't believe nobody has gone down the smart ass route with this one yet.
So I must.



Bwahaha
Hohoho
Heeheehee
I am funnier than sex with a fat chick in a mini.

Masada

theres nothing wrong with diesel supercars, they did extremely well when they were introduced to the lemans 24hr races.,

the first pic looks like something from a gillette add, too many fins and grills and whats with those "pimp my ride" chrome wheels.,lol

WHITE_P

bazz26 wrote: »

Half the fun of a super car is listning to the growl from the petrol engine. It just doesn't sound the same with a diesel.

Ever heard a V10 TDI Tourag go by !! sounds pretty sweet.

dlofnep

They might look nice, but they are still diesels

bazz26

WHITE_P wrote: »

Ever heard a V10 TDI Tourag go by !! sounds pretty sweet.

Probably sounds sweet for a Tourag.

But then listen to the roar from the V8 petrol R8. :cool: IMO somethings should just be left as they are.

JHMEG

JJJJNR wrote: »

I've heard it and it sounds like a fighter jet

Or a Dyson, or a Vax.

E92

WHITE_P wrote: »

Ever heard a V10 TDI Tourag go by !! sounds pretty sweet.

I have and it's rubbish:D!(not in this country, but in Monaco)

Lads, if Audi can get the FIA to twist a few rules here and there and nobody says boo so that it is a lot more advantageous to have a diesel in Le Mans, that's fine, but it is hardly a level playing field is it? That is the reason Audi developed a diesel Le Mans car.

The whole point of this car is to knock the old diesel prejudices and stereotypes once and for all.

The R8 TDI may have 500 bhp, or 83 bhp per litre, but a BMW M5 can get 507 bhp from a 5.0 V10, or 101 bhp per litre, and even their own 4.2 V8 in the R8 has an output of 99 bhp per litre, so if Audi stretched out their own 4.2 V8 petrol to a 6.0 we would get a car with 593 bhp roughly.

I have no doubt a car with 737 lb ft of torque would do overtaking in fractions of a second, but that is missing the point. Supercars are about raw power high drama and high revs. 500 bhp is a huge amount of power, but there won't be the soundtrack of a petrol engine in the back and there certainly won't be the high revs either.

I think the new engine would make a wonderful addition as a top of the range A8, where none of this matters and Q7(this is already confirmed though), but supercars are supposed to be a high revving screamers with a wonderful exhaust note, and the R8 TDI is just not going to achieve this.

I don't want to sound all negative, the technological achievements in this engine are astonishing, and further proof if any were needed how much diesels have changed for the better. It's a case of a great engine being in the wrong car.

JHMEG wrote:

Or a Dyson, or a Vax.

+1. It sounds like a hoover. What's the point in having a supercar that sounds like a hoover ?

WHITE_P

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/217497/bmw_535d.html

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

I think the new engine would make a wonderful addition as a top of the range A8, where none of this matters and Q7(this is already confirmed though), but supercars are supposed to be a high revving screamers with a wonderful exhaust note, and the R8 TDI is just not going to achieve this.

why?

A supercar is suppoed to go fast, very fast actually. What it sounds like in the process is quite irrelevant.

And I challenge anyone to say a large truck engine flat to the mat with the turbo(s) spinning doesn't sound absolutely fantastic!

Anan1

maidhc wrote: »

A supercar is suppoed to go fast, very fast actually. What it sounds like in the process is quite irrelevant.

Irrelevant to who?;)

Redsoxfan

It mightn't sound great (esp at low speeds and when starting), but I quite like the look of the Alfa GT JTD (a production car!) .

E92

maidhc wrote: »

why?

A supercar is suppoed to go fast, very fast actually. What it sounds like in the process is quite irrelevant.

I completely disagree with you there. If I want something that sounds like a hoover, then I'll switch on the hoover at home!

If I want something that sounds like a supercar, then I'll buy a supercar with a proper engine i.e. petrol in it. Have you ever heard a supercar in real life? I challenge anyone to find a supercar that doesn't sound anything less than fantastic.

And the petrol one already does over 300 km/h, not exactly slow now is it? But if 414 bhp is too slow there will be a V10 petrol with 500 bhp in the R8 soon.

The TDi R8 will have the power, I have no doubt it would breeze past the current 4.2 V8 in the R8, but none of the drama, part of the appeal of supercars is having some big petrol engine with lots of cylinders making plenty of proper petrol noise, not dukka dukka dukka, diesel clatter and worse, something that sounds like a hoover, as the R10 TDI demonstrates.

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

I have and it's rubbish:D!(not in this country, but in Monaco)

The R8 TDI may have 500 bhp, or 83 bhp per litre, but a BMW M5 can get 507 bhp from a 5.0 V10, or 101 bhp per litre, and even their own 4.2 V8 in the R8 has an output of 99 bhp per litre, so if Audi stretched out their own 4.2 V8 petrol to a 6.0 we would get a car with 593 bhp roughly.

+1. It sounds like a hoover. What's the point in having a supercar that sounds like a hoover ?

Why do you constantly quote BHP/Litre figures! Its entirely irrelevant to the driver how big the cubic capacity vs BHP of their engine is (other than epeening on forums). And your extrapolation of BHP/Litre to dizzy heights is purely gross over-simplification of the complexities of engine design.

A 8.0L engine running on tomato ketchup that does 50MPG and 300BHP would still be a fantastic, world changing, engine so who cares how big the x.0litre it is? :rolleyes:

I have the V10 TDI too (in a Phaeton, not Touareg), as Ive posted before when cold and idle its a bit diesely (or like a rough petrol 4pot) but when revving its similar to a V8 petrol sound. Ive heard the V10 Touaregs at CeBit (in Hannover) and they were almost silent in the hustle and bustle when tipping along, much like the W12 (petrol) A8Ls also there. The W12 6.0l and V10 5.0L are positioned as flagship engines, awarded internationally and seen as the cutting edge in [German] engine design.

But I digress, performance and driveability should be paramount to a motoring enthusiast when discussing engines.

Wossack

imo, diesels arent sexy

sorry

Lex Luthor

I think colm_mcm has hot the nail on the head....these manufacturers never intend to sell any of these supercars in diesel. Its just to get the idea out there that diesel can be put in a car like that and have your A4 drivers saying..."its the same engine as in the R8"

WHITE_P

Its how it drives that matters not how it sounds. Sorry but all those who are hung up on what an engine sounds like, come accross as being sad. Anyway when your belting along in your expensive car with its high performance engine, you should be listening to some good driving music.

Prodigy's diesel power, or fire starter comes to mind.

Even some classical music sounds good at high speed.

conneem-TT

maidhc wrote: »

why?

A supercar is suppoed to go fast, very fast actually. What it sounds like in the process is quite irrelevant.

I think your mistaking a race car to a supercar. A supercar is supposed to very fast I'll give you that, but it is also supposed to make all your senses tingle, every time you look at it, every time you drive it, every time you hear, you are supposed to be wowed :cool:

In fact sound characterises some supercars, Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin ect.. tune their cars to sound like a Ferrari, an Aston ect..

maidhc

conneem-TT wrote: »

I think your mistaking a race car to a supercar. A supercar is supposed to very fast I'll give you that, but it is also supposed to make all your senses tingle, every time you look at it, every time you drive it, every time you hear, you are supposed to be wowed :cool:

In fact sound characterises some supercars, Ferrari, Porsche, Aston Martin ect.. tune their cars to sound like a Ferrari, an Aston ect..

Fair enough, sound is important, but i think part of the reason people like the sound of large petrol engines is the connotations of that sound rather than something intrinsically appealing to the human psyche!

Maybe if ferraris had been powered by briggs and stratton we would be talking about the wonders of the two stoke engine!

Either way I own both a loud petrol and a modern diesel. They bought sound nice when floored!

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

Why do you constantly quote BHP/Litre figures! Its entirely irrelevant to the driver how big the cubic capacity vs BHP of their engine is (other than epeening on forums). And your extrapolation of BHP/Litre to dizzy heights is purely gross over-simplification of the complexities of engine design.

A 8.0L engine running on tomato ketchup that does 50MPG and 300BHP would still be a fantastic, world changing, engine so who cares how big the x.0litre it is? :rolleyes:

The point about bhp per litre is to bring some reality about diesels. I'm tired of people and manufacturers telling me how diesels are so much more powerful than petrols these days. You'd swear the petrol engine has no power at all these days you know:rolleyes:. And to put these so called technological wonders into perspective. It's not hard to get either fuel to produce x bhp. Just make the engine bigger. It is harder to get it to get plenty of power from the engine size though, and diesels still are nowhere near as good. The ones that match petrols have twin turbos, meanwhile, petrols still are turboless.

I sound like a Hondamentalist banging on about bhp per litre, I will try to calm down about it;)!

As for sound, I find most diesels rubbish sounding(though some more than others), compared to petrols of the same cylinder type. Just a personal opinion these things are subjective I know, no offence intended to your car(fair play to you for standing out from the crowd by buying such a car), but I know I much prefer petrol noise to diesel dukka dukka dukka:D!

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

The point about bhp per litre is to bring some reality about diesels.

No, there is no point about going on about bhp per litre and extrapolating from that, as it is fiction.

Point is when you sit behind a wheel and what happens when you press the loud pedal. In a supercar very good things should happen, and really that is the bottom line. A diesel under heavy acceleration sounds as nice as any petrol. All things being equal if anyone is willing to forgo a huge economy benenfit and a wall of torque (yes no matter which way you "twist" it, diesels general more power per rpm) for the noise you hear on a cold morning they should join Paul Gascoigne in his new home!

JHMEG

This is the sexiest diesel motor in Ireland today. Sh!t exhaust note, a really low redline, and diesel fumes so thick you can feel the lung cancer coming on. But at 3200bhp it blows pretty much everything else into the weeds.

Opel owners, feel proud. Built by General Motors in Canada, the first one was actually flown over to Ireland (all 112 tonnes) in one of those massive Antanov cargo planes (no doubt there'll be an enquiry about that yet).

Ladies and gentlemen, the CIE 201-II class:

E92

maidhc wrote: »

No, there is no point about going on about bhp per litre and extrapolating from that, as it is fiction.

Point is when you sit behind a wheel and what happens when you press the loud pedal. In a supercar very good things should happen, and really that is the bottom line. A diesel under heavy acceleration sounds as nice as any petrol. All things being equal if anyone is willing to forgo a huge economy benenfit and a wall of torque (yes no matter which way you "twist" it, diesels general more power per rpm) for the noise you hear on a cold morning they should join Paul Gascoigne in his new home!

The argument about torque would be fine, apart from the fact that cars have gears for a reason. The 2 engine types have totally different driving characteristics, if you drive petrols like a diesel should be driven and vice versa then of course you'll be disappointed by one or the other.

In the case of Fords the economy benefit is indeed huge because Fords petrol engines are stonge age technologically speaking, but I do very little driving, so fuel costs don't worry me at all, not even slightly.

In the case of a car maker like BMW which has some of the most advanced petrol engines on sale(if someone can show me another car that has a virtual common rail style injection system with piezo injectors, and variable valve timing on both inlet and exhaust valves then I'll gladly give them a mention, I don't want to be using BMW all the time), then the economy gap can actually be very small between the 2 fuels. The 530i with an Automatic gearbox does 37.7 mpg, the 530d with an Automatic gearbox does 42.2 mpg. So the diesel is just 11% more efficient than the petrol model. It actually pollutes just 2 g/km less CO2 than the petrol model believe it or not, because every litre of diesel burned emits 10-13% more CO2 into the atmosphere than every litre of petrol(ok, the gap is wider if I used manual models of both, but who buys a 3.0 executive saloon with a manual gearbox?).


Compared to a Mondeo, where the 2.0 TDCi 140 is 33.8% more efficient under the EU tests than the 2.0 petrol, because the Mondeo's 2.0 has no variable valve timing, and no piezo injectors or common rail style injection(the diesels are pretty much the same technologically speaking in both cars).

The point being that if you put the technology into petrol cars, you can get very close to diesels for economy and emissions if you want to;)!

I don't have a hatred for diesel maidhc. My dad will be getting a diesel car next year because of my persuasding him to do so(he was going to be getting one this year but I told him to wait till the new VRT changes came, then we found out that there was a new Avensis on the way, so hes not buying till that comes out at the earliest) for the very first time, now if I hated diesels do you think I'd have told him to wait(would I have even tried to presuade him to get one);)?

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

diesel fumes so thick you can feel the lung cancer coming on

ROFL

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

The argument about torque would be fine, apart from the fact that cars have gears for a reason. The 2 engine types have totally different driving characteristics, if you drive petrols like a diesel should be driven and vice versa then of course you'll be disappointed by one or the other.

I know, but a diesel generates more torque at the crankshaft, and has a far greater power backup.

So to keep this on thread, there is no reason why a supercar etc could be insanely cool, despite having diesel power. Lower RPMS, but more instant delivery, a more flexible engine etc.

I refuse to believe any 3L petrol automatic will do even remotely close to 40mpg. If they did 30 I would say it is an engineering miracle!

E92

maidhc wrote: »

I refuse to believe any 3L petrol automatic will do even remotely close to 40mpg. If they did 30 I would say it is an engineering miracle!

Here's one that does 37.7 mpg on the combined cycle(a claimed 37.7 of course:D). And here is one that averages nearly 40 mpg(claimed) on the same cycle. In out of town driving it will apparently do 50.4 mpg:eek:.

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

Here's one that does 37.7 mpg on the combined cycle(a claimed 37.7 of course:D). And here is one that averages nearly 40 mpg(claimed) on the same cycle. In out of town driving it will apparently do 50.4 mpg:eek:.

Lol, I was sitting here wondering would you get the reply in under 30min, nice one!

The BMW Petrol (in particular) engines are fantastic, their CO2 rating (ie for Tax purposes) and excellent MPG are really coming to public attention these days. I for one welcome the fact that someday soon Irish people wont be afraid of everything over 2.0l ("cos de tax would kill ye") and BMW are leading the way.

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

Lol, I was sitting here wondering would you get the reply in under 30min, nice one!

The BMW Petrol (in particular) engines are fantastic, their CO2 rating (ie for Tax purposes) and excellent MPG are really coming to public attention these days. I for one welcome the fact that someday soon Irish people wont be afraid of everything over 2.0l ("cos de tax would kill ye") and BMW are leading the way.

In fairness it's only the EfficientDynamics ones that are really good on mpg and CO2. The non ED ones are only a bit better than their rivals(thougfh still better). +1 about the anything over 2.0 litre statement btw(as an aside, I know I said I'd update my VRT thread last Friday re the Beetle, and I apologisde as I know I haven't done it yet, but I'm waiting to get the prices of the new Focus, and make a couple of other changes, and when that's done, I'll post a new thread with the updated Beetle pricelists, I haven't forgotten about it;)).

The impressive thing about the 6 pots with ED is that you're in the same tax and CO2 band once you put an Autobox into them. I don't know of any other car that allows you to choose a petrol and pay no VRT or road tax penalty over the diesel model apart from that.

Though Merc have a couple of low emissions versions on the way, and VAG have those e models from Audi, so others are certainly catching up with BMW re emssions/tax etc, but they seem to be using just one/ a few version(s) as a halo type car, while BMW have applied the fuel saving tech to all their cars bar the M models, X3, Z4 and 7 series(and all of these cars will be replaced by the end of next year, so the entire BMW range will have ED by then) at this stage.

galwaytt

E92, if you keep talking like that, you'll have to start refusing to sell 535d's, 335d', 320d's, 520d's etc. You can't bemoan them on one hand, and write out order forms for them with the other.........!!

unkel

galwaytt wrote: »

E92, if you keep talking like that, you'll have to start refusing to sell 535d's, 335d', 320d's, 520d's etc. You can't bemoan them on one hand, and write out order forms for them with the other.........!!

E92 does not sell BMWs for a living afaik

Esel

Maxol ftw.

E92

unkel wrote: »

E92 does not sell BMWs for a living afaik

yup, I've nothing at all to do with BMW(or any other maker). the height of what I've got to do with BMW is the fact that I like 'em galwaytt(but I like loads of other cars too, and not all BMWs are good either):).

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

E92 does not sell BMWs for a living afaik

Not yet..;)

Lex Luthor

I'm sure when it comes to Le Mans, this R8 will do very well as it won't have to make as many stops as the rest and the drive should be less tiring for the driver

prospect

I'm surprosed that nobody has pointed out that the car in the OP's post is an ugly contraption....


And the 407 gets slagged for having a gaping whale mouth??

Lex Luthor

prospect wrote: »

I'm surprosed that nobody has pointed out that the car in the OP's post is an ugly contraption....


And the 407 gets slagged for having a gaping whale mouth??

it is ugly and the interior is woeful for a car of that price