Why do we still have petrol cars?

jayok

If modern day diesels are more fuel efficient, produce more torque and sufficient amounts of power, why do we still have the petrol car?

Excluding the specialists "sports" cars such as RX8's or M3's and so on, the average punter just needs an A-to-B car and they really don't care about the engine why don't we see 90% diesel sales and say 10% petrol (for the specialists)?

I know on the continent that diesels outsell petrol cars something like 2:1, but then again, why do petrol cars even sell?

Exluding performance, what would someone buy a new petrol car instead of a new diesel?

Wishbone Ash

For those doing low milage, the initial extra cost of most diesels probably wouldn't balance out.

peasant

One reason would be that a petrol engine is cheaper to make and lighter (because of the lower compression rate). It als o has longer service intervals.

Especially in smaller cars (compare a 1 liter petrol to a 1.3 liter diesel) you'd have to do a lot of driving before your lower fuel consumption pays you back for the higher purchase price and maintenance cost of the diesel. (more so now, that diesel is the same price or more expensive than petrol)

craichoe

peasant wrote: »

One reason would be that a petrol engine is cheaper to make and lighter (because of the lower compression rate). It als o has longer service intervals.

Especially in smaller cars (compare a 1 liter petrol to a 1.3 liter diesel) you'd have to do a lot of driving before your lower fuel consumption pays you back for the higher purchase price and maintenance cost of the diesel. (more so now, that diesel is the same price or more expensive than petrol)

Diesel is well cheaper than petrol on the continent though !

Also, i thought service intervals on the new diesel engines was the same as petrol ?

cantdecide

Prohibitive purchase price- you have to be doing high mileage just to break even.

The next few years will see a lot more diesels after the July changes, though.

cantdecide

...oh and refinement. Diesels are still only getting there, especially the 4 pots. My dad recently sold his GS300- it was remarkably quiet and refined. It will be another few years:rolleyes:before you will be able to stand next to a running diesel and not hear it idling!!

Niall1234

If everyone switched to Diesel then the price of Petrol would go down.

It all follows the laws of Demand and Supply. If people perceive that a Diesel car would be cheaper, then they will go for one.

If everyone went with Diesel, price of Petrol would fall, everyone would then buy Petrol and the prices would balance off again.

cantdecide

As it stands, diesel is WWWAAAAAYYYYYY overpriced consiering how much cheaper it is to produce, but I'm sure everyone knows that.

JHMEG

Be thankful that more people are *not* using diesel.. there'd be more lung cancer, asthma, respiratory problems etc, especially in children. I can't find the source at moment, but it's estimated that 8,000 people a year die in the UK due to illnesses caused by diesel fumes.

They've only recently found out how to tell lung cancer caused by diesel fumes from lung cancer caused by smoking, so expect in the come years actual hard numbers on the amount of people killed each year by diesel.

Ironically enough diesel emissions are set for a major clean up with euro 5 in 2011, but still won't be as clean as petrol.

E92

Some people prefer the way petrol engines drive for a start. Some people prefer the fact that petrols are still quieter. They're still much cheaper to buy(though not for long).

People who aren't into cars still think diesels are as slow as walking, and extremely noisy, so they're definitely not even going to consider diesel(though they might come July).

The Euro 6 standards for diesels are the same as those for Euro4 petrols(excluding Carbon Monoxide, the limit of which is half for diesels).

A lot of the new Euro 5 and Euro 6 diesels will need AdBule, so as to pass the test standards. You're gonna have to pay for that every time you get the car serviced, and for the cost of these advanced emissions systems.

At the end of the day, because petrol is taxed so much higher in the Continent, it is much cheaper to run diesel cars. The marketing people in BMW or any of the other makes selling diesels in the US are always keen to tell US drivers how many people in Europe drive diesel powered versions in their car's ranges, because diesels are so much quicker in the real world than petrols, and almost as quiet and of course they are more economical.

What they never tell the US customers is that Europeans love diesel because it's so much cheaper, a lot of Governments, including our own from July help subsidise the cost of buying diesel.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate diesel, some of the fastest car drives I've gone in were in diesel powered taxis, so I know they are very good performers, I have told anyone who's asked here about buying new cars to wait and get the diesel models, if I hated diesels I'd be saying buy now and don't bother with diesel, the 30% greater efficiency in terms of fuel consumption can't be ignored either, but a bit of reality wouldn't go astray either;)!

boomboombazza

isn't diesel worse for the environment?as if that would bother me...im a grade a gass guzzler (3.0 M3)

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

because diesels are so much quicker in the real world than petrols,

Oh god no, not this myth again. In the real world cars have gears, which diesel fanboys seem to conveniently forget to factor in.

In the real world petrol is king of speed.

JHMEG

boomboombazza wrote: »

isn't diesel worse for the environment?as if that would bother me...im a grade a gass guzzler (3.0 M3)

Petrol is worse for the planet than diesel. Diesel is worse for people than petrol.

Green Hornet

jayok wrote: »

If modern day diesels are more fuel efficient, produce more torque and sufficient amounts of power, why do we still have the petrol car?

Excluding the specialists "sports" cars such as RX8's or M3's and so on, the average punter just needs an A-to-B car and they really don't care about the engine why don't we see 90% diesel sales and say 10% petrol (for the specialists)?

I know on the continent that diesels outsell petrol cars something like 2:1, but then again, why do petrol cars even sell?

Exluding performance, what would someone buy a new petrol car instead of a new diesel?

I guess your last statement is the reason that many people buy petrol cars.

It's the performance and lower purchase cost.

Many 1.8 L petrol cars will now routinely give 40 mpg on reasonably long journeys and are much more refined. No matter what nonsense you hear from diesel heads a 1.8 petrol will almost always outperform a 2.0 turbo diesel.

The_Conductor

Niall1234 wrote: »

If everyone switched to Diesel then the price of Petrol would go down.

It all follows the laws of Demand and Supply. If people perceive that a Diesel car would be cheaper, then they will go for one.

If everyone went with Diesel, price of Petrol would fall, everyone would then buy Petrol and the prices would balance off again.

If there was a perfectly competitive market this might happen. There isn't. Over 80% of the price of the fuel at the pump is taxes and duty- which will remain constant regardless of demand. The production cost of diesel, as a heavy oil, is significantly less than the production cost of petrol. As more refining capacity was freed up to produce the much less refined diesel, the production cost for diesel might fall even further, and that of petrol rise. So- its quite possible that the inverse of what you are suggesting may in actual fact occur.

jayok

JHMEG wrote: »

Be thankful that more people are *not* using diesel.. there'd be more lung cancer, asthma, respiratory problems etc, especially in children. I can't find the source at moment, but it's estimated that 8,000 people a year die in the UK due to illnesses caused by diesel fumes

While I didn't know this and can't refute this, wouldn't trucks, buses, trains, ferries, etc, emit far more diesel fumes than cars (on a mileage basis). As such wouldn't these vehicles be the main culprits?

Green Hornet wrote:

Many 1.8 L petrol cars will now routinely give 40 mpg on reasonably long journeys and are much more refined. No matter what nonsense you hear from diesel heads a 1.8 petrol will almost always outperform a 2.0 turbo diesel.

Really? The reason, I asked about the original post, is we currently have a 2 litre CR-V (with that DOHC i-VTEC thingy) and I've been driving a 1.8 TDCi Ford S-Max. I have to say, from a torque delivery, power, economy and refinement, the S-Max is winning. Not that the CR-V is a unrefined or anything, but I rarely get over 31mpg with the CR-V and I'm getting 45+ with the S-Max. So in this instance, I don't see how the 2 litre petrol is better than even a 1.8 Diesel.

<EDIT> I should add I drove the 2 litre petrol S-Max, but after the diesel this didn't even raise a gallop in the above terms.

John R

smccarrick wrote: »

If there was a perfectly competitive market this might happen. There isn't. Over 80% of the price of the fuel at the pump is taxes and duty- which will remain constant regardless of demand. The production cost of diesel, as a heavy oil, is significantly less than the production cost of petrol. As more refining capacity was freed up to produce the much less refined diesel, the production cost for diesel might fall even further, and that of petrol rise. So- its quite possible that the inverse of what you are suggesting may in actual fact occur.

The production cost has little to do with the pre-tax price of fuel, it is all about supply/demand. The huge increases in oil prices has been because demand is increasing not because production costs have shot up.

JHMEG

jayok wrote: »

While I didn't know this and can't refute this, wouldn't trucks, buses, trains, ferries, etc, emit far more diesel fumes than cars (on a mileage basis). As such wouldn't these vehicles be the main culprits?

In most Irish cities and town centres you won't find ferries or trains... as well as cars you'll only get trucks and maybe the odd bus.

From the EPA 2006 report on air quality in Ireland:
"The main pollutants recorded in 2006 were nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM10)."
"NOx includes the two pollutants nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Power-generation plants and motor vehicles are the principal sources of NOx,"
[Diesel engines can produce 24 times more NOx than petrol. (source)]
"The main sources of PM10 are the combustion of solid fuels and road traffic, in particular emissions from diesel engines."

As E92 pointed out, Euro 6 emissions regulations, which aren't due till 2014, will clean up diesel emissions to the standard that petrol is at today (euro 4).

If you care about your health and your kids' health, think twice about diesel.

The_Conductor

John R wrote:

The production cost has little to do with the pre-tax price of fuel, it is all about supply/demand. The huge increases in oil prices has been because demand is increasing not because production costs have shot up.

Not entirely true. My argument was that a greater demand for diesel would not result in a surplus of petrol, and a consequent reduction in its price. Vis production costs, as a much less refined product, with a much higher crude recovery ratio- the production cost of diesel has a lower PCR, at about .4, than petrol which is 1.2 -Its far more economic to produce the diesel, and to up its production in lieu of petrol production if the demand shifts in that direction (totally aside from the tax/duty reasons which are artificially reducing the price elasticity of demand in the first place). To believe that petrol prices will fall as a result of lower demand in favour of higher demand for diesel is living in a fantasy world.

Green Hornet

jayok wrote: »

Really? The reason, I asked about the original post, is we currently have a 2 litre CR-V (with that DOHC i-VTEC thingy) and I've been driving a 1.8 TDCi Ford S-Max. I have to say, from a torque delivery, power, economy and refinement, the S-Max is winning. Not that the CR-V is a unrefined or anything, but I rarely get over 31mpg with the CR-V and I'm getting 45+ with the S-Max. So in this instance, I don't see how the 2 litre petrol is better than even a 1.8 Diesel.

<EDIT> I should add I drove the 2 litre petrol S-Max, but after the diesel this didn't even raise a gallop in the above terms.

In fairness, the CRV is a bigger, heavier set of wheels than the S-Max. I guess I'm referring to the smaller saloon, hatchback bracket. I drive a Civic 1.8 iVTec saloon and routinely achieve 40+ mpg on a daily 80 mile round trip.

bazz26

jayok wrote: »

If modern day diesels are more fuel efficient, produce more torque and sufficient amounts of power, why do we still have the petrol car?

Excluding the specialists "sports" cars such as RX8's or M3's and so on, the average punter just needs an A-to-B car and they really don't care about the engine why don't we see 90% diesel sales and say 10% petrol (for the specialists)?

I know on the continent that diesels outsell petrol cars something like 2:1, but then again, why do petrol cars even sell?

Exluding performance, what would someone buy a new petrol car instead of a new diesel?

Alot of it can be personal choice.

E92

Another thing is that every litre of diesel burned produces 13% more CO2 than every litre of petrol. So a petrol doing 50 mpg produces the same CO2 as a diesel that does 56.5 mpg.

Based on that, diesel should cost 13% more at the pumps than petrol, if we're serious about cleaning up our act, plus the health risk as outlined by JHMEG has yet to be mentioned in any discussion about the new VRT system.

We seem to have buried it under the carpet as far as I'm concerned.

Now modern diesels are infinitely cleaner than diesels from even 10 years ago, and the gap between diesel and petrol is way, way smaller than it used to be in terms of pollutants etc., but petrol is still well ahead.

Any diesel that meets the Tier 2 Bin 5 standard in the US is unquestionably greener than a comparable petrol though.

The US emission standards are fuel neutral, therefore even though even though every unit of diesel is a greater polluter of CO2 than each same unit of petrol, the decrease in fuel consumption which is an inherent characteristic of diesel is more than the increase in CO2 per unit of fuel burned (i.e. a reduction of 20-30% of fuel used is clearly more than an increase of 13% of CO2 per unit of fuel burned), this of course should happen here with the European Emissions standards, but sadly doesn't.

Audi did win LeMans twice in a row with a diesel car, but they also got the rules changed so that they would be biased towards diesels, which is why they entered a diesel for it in the first place.

Some of their road going petrol cars still have more bhp per litre than the R10 TDI but unlike the R10, these cars are designed to last 200k miles, whereas the R10's engine only had to last 24 hours. I mean the Audi S3 and the new TT-S all have more bhp per litre than the R10 TDI(the R10 has 118 bhp per litre, the S3 has 132.5 bhp per litre(265/2), the TT-S has 140 bhp per litre (280 bhp from it's 2.0 engine, an extreme example I admit, but nevertheless we are talking about cars that are supposed to go fast.

Although many road cars nowadays offer a higher bhp per litre from diesel cars than from petrols, that's largely because all diesels have a turbo these days, many have 2 turbos, while the vast majority of petrols still have no turbo, and with the exception of BMW, FSI/TSI/TFSI VAG, and Honda and a handful of other engines, petrol engines in most cars are technologically speaking stone age compared to diesel engines, and naturally this exaggerates the torque and economy advantages of diesels, as well as in some cases giving them even more power than similar size petrol engines too.

I mean we can all marvel about the new twin sequential turbo 2.0 litre diesel engine from BMW, what with 102 bhp per litre, and that is a very high amount even for a petrol engine. But the M3's engine has 105 bhp per litre, and not 1 turbo never mind two sequential ones in sight, so petrol still clearly has the capability of providing loads more power than diesel, it's just that nobody seems to try these days.

After all the Nissan Skylines 2.6 litre engine is known to be able to give a 1000 bhp, now thats no less than 384 bhp per litre, FWIW if we made it a 5.5 litre, with that sort of a specific output, a 5.5 litre version would give an incredible 2,115 bhp, compared to the Audi R10's 650 bhp, 2,115 bhp clearly blows 650 bhp into the weeds.

alias no.9

Green Hornet wrote: »

In fairness, the CRV is a bigger, heavier set of wheels than the S-Max.

In fairness, it's not. The S-max is longer, wider and heavier than the CR-V. The CR-V is taller due to the raised ride height, being a soft roader and all that.

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

But the M3's engine has 105 bhp per litre, and not 1 turbo never mind two sequential ones in sight.

11 year old F20C from the S2000: 120bhp per litre. Normally aspirated. Makes the M3's engine look like an under achiever.:D;)

SV

Well to be honest..I just like not sounding like a tractor as I go around.

-Chris-

E92 wrote: »

Another thing is that every litre of diesel burned produces 13% more CO2 than every litre of petrol...

...After all the Nissan Skylines 2.6 litre engine is known to be able to give a 1000 bhp, now thats no less than 384 bhp per litre, FWIW if we made it a 5.5 litre, with that sort of a specific output, a 5.5 litre version would give an incredible 2,115 bhp, compared to the Audi R10's 650 bhp, 2,115 bhp clearly blows 650 bhp into the weeds.

E92, I don't know you, know about you, know what you do or even know what age you are but I think the members of the Motors forum owe you a ebt of gratitude for the info you give and the time you put into it.

Nice one!

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

11 year old F20C from the S2000: 120bhp per litre. Normally aspirated. Makes the M3's engine look like an under achiever.:D;)

Yup, though the newer i-VTEC engines have a lower specific output than this(the JDM Civic and Integra DC5 Type-R spring to mind here), what have Honda been up to ever since:D?

Nobody can deny that the S2000's ability to rev to 9,000 rpm and produce 118.5 bhp per litre without any form of forced induction is quite a staggering achievement in reality.

(in fairness the S65B40 revs to 8350 rpm which is nevertheless amazing for a V8, though the Honda even has a higher torque per litre than the S65B40 too, that said it comes much higher up in the rev range than the M3s the S2ks torque comes at 7500 rpm compared to the M3s peak torque at a much lower 3900 rpm, I put this in brackets because I know how much you love torque:p)

Though I note from Wikipedia that a JDM S2000 will give you 125 bhp per litre from the same F20C engine, amazing stuff really.

E92

AudiChris wrote: »

E92, I don't know you, know about you, know what you do or even know what age you are but I think the members of the Motors forum owe you a ebt of gratitude for the info you give and the time you put into it.

Nice one!

In fairness a lot of people know far more about cars than I do here, though yes I'm completely nuts about them alright:D!(though I do like loads of other stuff such as surfing, which absolutely rules, but cars are clearly my favourite, I'm going for a spin in an S5 any day soon, I'm like a dog with a new bone at the thought of it:p)

I knew very little about cars before I joined boards compared to what I know now, basicallly if I see read or hear something new and it is of interest to me and anything to do with cars certainly is of interest to me, I'll remember it, so a lot of things I know about them now are often things said by other people here already, and I've remembered it(the emissions stuff was mentioned by JHMEG a good few months ago for exaple, and I still remember most of what he said;))! If it's something uninteresting, then I'll have forgotten it a fewseconds after I heard it though:D. Which is one of the great things about cars, there's always something new to know about them, and the whole engines and all that stuff keeps changing all the time, so it is absolutely fascinating really.

And I certainly know SFA about the goings on under the bonnet, the height of my mechanical skillis are my ability to change lightbulbs and to use a dipstick, and I know what all the lights on a dashboard mean too, as well as some of the funny sounds from a car e.g. I know what a tappety engine sounds like, but that's it.

So I guess what I should say thanks to the other boardsies for sharing your knowledge really:p.

Robbo

E92 wrote: »

After all the Nissan Skylines 2.6 litre engine is known to be able to give a 1000 bhp, now thats no less than 384 bhp per litre, FWIW if we made it a 5.5 litre, with that sort of a specific output, a 5.5 litre version would give an incredible 2,115 bhp, compared to the Audi R10's 650 bhp, 2,115 bhp clearly blows 650 bhp into the weeds.

The Audi R10 engine has to contend with an air restrictor (as all Le Mans cars do) which effectively limits it to ~550 bhp. Where it comes into it's own is that sheer amount of torque it produces (enough so that the R10 has a 5 speed box instead of a 6 speed one in the R8 and the ECU cuts the torque in the lower gears to save the rear tyres) and the ability to go longer between pitstops. As a consequence, there's been much bickering about equivalency formulas for Le Mans.

It is quite foolish to extrapolate in a straight line when you're talking about engine output. It simply doesn't work like that. There's cooling issues, driveability, anti-lag and a whole host of other problems.

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

Oh god no, not this myth again. In the real world cars have gears, which diesel fanboys seem to conveniently forget to factor in.

In the real world petrol is king of speed.

I think you should lay off generalising so much. Most of diesels are wheesy, underpowered, A-B cheapo wagons. That doesnt mean diesel as a technology is slower or faster than "petrol". You dont need hyperbole to argue with these "diesel fanboys" as they have to be outnumbered 10 to 1.

And your pollutant info, while I believe is correct, is being portrayed in a very lobsided manner; we have one fuel that leads to skins cancer and global warming and another that leads to lung cancer and respitory problems... erm pick one?

They both suck regarding "eco" concerns and they both need to be replaced, so whats the point berating one over the other?

Biro

E92 wrote: »

Yup, though the newer i-VTEC engines have a lower specific output than this(the JDM Civic and Integra DC5 Type-R spring to mind here), what have Honda been up to ever since:D?

Nobody can deny that the S2000's ability to rev to 9,000 rpm and produce 118.5 bhp per litre without any form of forced induction is quite a staggering achievement in reality.

Not to mention the even more remarkable fact that it's one of the (if not the) most reliable engine in the world!

blackbox

What about the disgusting smell?

The smoke and fumes from Diesel exhaust are obviously disgusting, but the smell from the fuel itself is also awful.

If you get it on your hands or shoes at the filling station, the stink lingers in your car for hours.

Good for sales of Magic Trees I suppose!:D

kona

Diesel is crap, has no power until recently are super boring...now just boring and only serves the purpose to fool people into thinking burning this particular fossil fuel is green.

petrol engines are like music, and are quicker and a hell of a lot more fun.

the way i look at it is, if this government says diesel is good, then my common sense tells me to run a mile.

and the smell of petrol is great;):D:D

Matt Simis

blackbox wrote: »

What about the disgusting smell?

The smoke and fumes from Diesel exhaust are obviously disgusting, but the smell from the fuel itself is also awful.

If you get it on your hands or shoes at the filling station, the stink lingers in your car for hours.

Obviously the fuel smells bad (if you use Petro-diesel, BioDiesel doesnt smell) but the exhaust on VAG diesels certainly doesnt smell disgusting. It runs through some scrubbing during the exhaust and just smells strange.. Buses and Trains etc are obviously entirely different in that regard.

craichoe

Matt Simis wrote: »

Obviously the fuel smells bad (if you use Petro-diesel, BioDiesel doesnt smell) but the exhaust on VAG diesels certainly doesnt smell disgusting. It runs through some scrubbing during the exhaust and just smells strange.. Buses and Trains etc are obviously entirely different in that regard.

The Cork to Blarney bus hit 1,000,000 miles 7 months ago and is still going strong running on BioDiesel, but the public transport in general stinks

Longevity wise i think Diesels engines last alot longer.

99-Present day the engines have come on in leaps and bounds too.

You do feel a massive saving when driving 1000km on a trip as opposed to the Petrol on the continent anyway

Matt Simis

kona wrote: »

Diesel is crap, has no power until recently are super boring...now just boring and only serves the purpose to fool people into thinking burning this particular fossil fuel is green.

petrol engines are like music, and are quicker and a hell of a lot more fun.

Crap eh? Can your, presumably petrol, engine pull 155tonnes?
http://dieselblog.net/2006/11/volkswagen-v10-tdi-diesel-tows-a-boeing-747/

Its worth noting the stock V10 TDI is detuned, they flat lined the Torque as it was so high. You can now get the R50 version with the performance "restored":
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sydney-auto-show/volkswagen-touareg-r50-v10-diesel-officially-revealed-310116.php

Diesel is perfectly mated to making big, heavy vehicles move fast. If all you want to do is screw around in a little coupe, then diesel is probably not for you.

But yeah, more torque than a Murcielago LP640 (at 1/3 of the RPM..), thats boring right?

E92

Unquestionably diesels are more reliable than petrols, because they don't rev that high, and develop less power than petrol enginers. They are still heavier than petrol engines, so petrol engines will have better weight distribution and in theory this makes petrol cars more entertaining handling wise to drive than a diesel.

There are advantages to both types of engine really, you can't just say because diesel works well in some cars that it will work in everything, and the same applies to petrol engines too.

Diesels have more torque, many have almost as much power, and often have more power than their petrol sisters, they do much better fuel economy, even though every litre of diesel burnt has 13% more CO2 produced than every litre of petrol burnt, the fact that most diesels will do 30% more mpg is clearly a lot better than the increase from the extra CO2 per unit of fuel produced, they are much lower emitters of Carbon Monoxide than petrols are, they have improved in noise, clatter, overall emissions, power, torque no end compared to before the pre common rail era.

The advantages of petrol power have been explained by me and others in quite some detail already.

E92

Matt Simis wrote: »

Crap eh? Can your, presumably petrol, engine pull 155tonnes?
http://dieselblog.net/2006/11/volkswagen-v10-tdi-diesel-tows-a-boeing-747/

Its worth noting the stock V10 TDI is detuned, they flat lined the Torque as it was so high. You can now get the R50 version with the performance "restored":
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sydney-auto-show/volkswagen-touareg-r50-v10-diesel-officially-revealed-310116.php

Diesel is perfectly mated to making big, heavy vehicles move fast. If all you want to do is screw around in a little coupe, then diesel is probably not for you.

But yeah, more torque than a Murcielago LP640 (at 1/3 of the RPM..), thats boring right?

An engine that produces 277 lb ft at 4000 rpm is equivalent to an engine producing 554 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpm(assuming that gear ratios etc are identical). There is a torque multiplier effect from the engine, which means that when petrols are given plenty of revs, they have just as much torque as diesels, it's just the need a lot more revs to do it;)!

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

An engine that produces 277 lb ft at 4000 rpm is equivalent to an engine producing 554 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpm(assuming that gear ratios etc are identical). There is a torque multiplier effect from the engine, which means that when petrols are given plenty of revs, they have just as much torque as diesels, it's just the need a lot more revs to do it;)!

Well if thats true then surely it applies to diesels also:


When that TDI is at max BHP (3.5k RPM, 290bhp according to that test) its still putting out 380 ft/lbs of torque (down from 553 at 2k RPM). Incidentally just stumbled on this site, really handy for figures and charts:
http://www.rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?Flap=Graph&ChartsID=675

Im not a fanboy of either engine, I just hate to see mob mentality:p

JHMEG

E92 wrote: »

An engine that produces 277 lb ft at 4000 rpm is equivalent to an engine producing 554 lb ft of torque at 2000 rpm(

That's actually not correct. An engine that produces 277 at 4000rpm is equivalent to nothing other than an engine that produces 277. A gearbox has to be added. (Your understanding is not correct)

Matt Simis wrote:

And your pollutant info, while I believe is correct, is being portrayed in a very lobsided manner; we have one fuel that leads to skins cancer and global warming and another that leads to lung cancer and respitory problems... erm pick one?

Petrol is helping, along with diesel, to create global warming.
Diesel is killing people right now, today. Just like cigarette smoking.

Therefore I pick petrol!

The_Conductor

JHMEG wrote: »

Petrol is helping, along with diesel, to create global warming.
Diesel is killing people right now, today. Just like cigarette smoking.

Therefore I pick petrol!

The issue is particulate size. Recent studies have mostly focused on the <1µm particle emissions from diesels, and used that to quantify increased cancer risks. When you compare this with the toluene and benzene pollutants from petrol (petrol is still typically >1% benzene- which is a reduction from the 3.2-3.6% of the mid 1990's), its very much a toss-up as to which fuel is more carcinogenic on combustion. Petrol definitely produces more CO2, versus a small increases in the nitrous oxides for diesel- if you are looking at greenhouse warming. I.e. one produces a greenhouse gas, whereas the other destroys ozone. The advent of catalytic convertors in petrol engines, and far better particulate filters for diesel engines, has changed the landscape somewhat- but its still very much open to interpretation as to which fuel is better or worse from either a health or environmental perspective.

S.

kona

Matt Simis wrote: »

Crap eh? Can your, presumably petrol, engine pull 155tonnes?
http://dieselblog.net/2006/11/volkswagen-v10-tdi-diesel-tows-a-boeing-747/

Its worth noting the stock V10 TDI is detuned, they flat lined the Torque as it was so high. You can now get the R50 version with the performance "restored":
http://jalopnik.com/cars/sydney-auto-show/volkswagen-touareg-r50-v10-diesel-officially-revealed-310116.php

Diesel is perfectly mated to making big, heavy vehicles move fast. If all you want to do is screw around in a little coupe, then diesel is probably not for you.

But yeah, more torque than a Murcielago LP640 (at 1/3 of the RPM..), thats boring right?

well if your going to take stuff out of context, why **** around with crappy internal combustion at all??, whack a rolls-royce trent in your TDi Golf that will have thousand times the power of your diesel.

tbh a Murcielago is boring, to me all supercars are ****, unless they have no power steering, no nothing, just a OTT engine that will make you **** yourself, otherwise no thanks.

a v10 tdi, why dont we get a v10 turbo petrol and see what happens???

diesels are ****, you get more bang for buck from petrol, if you want a powerful diesel to match a petrol it has to be 1)huge 2)turbocharged.
this means more weight.

im not sure power/weight ratio of a diesel engine is???

and that tourag *might* have been standard........(not really)

and we come to this, why on earth would you buy a car because it can tow a 747 with no engines???
sure a tug will do that?? wonder what the damage to the clutch/engine/mounts/brakes etc?????

Matt Simis

Lots of "*****"'s and not a point to be found there Kona, no need to reply to some one so close minded.

PS: I dont have a TDI Golf, I do have a V10 tho.

JHMEG

And the point of being able to pull a 747 is? And the point of having more torque than a lambo is?

kona

Matt Simis wrote: »

Lots of "*****"'s and not a point to be found there Kona, no need to reply to some one so close minded.

PS: I dont have a TDI Golf, I do have a V10 tho.

meh its a opinion,
i know diesel owners get quite attached to them and its funny when thye pull out lots of **** to defend them.
im just winding you up:p

i wonder if aer lingus are stuck for a push back, maybe the pilot will ask the trolley dolly for a shot of her range rover:D:D:p

and you dont reply with a comment "no need to reply as your close minded":D:D

heard some loola talk about him blowin away a DC5 integra with a golf tDI,
i laughed:D:D

bottom line diesel is boring.....when are ferrari dropping one into a car???

Matt Simis

JHMEG wrote: »

And the point of being able to pull a 747 is? And the point of having more torque than a lambo is?

It was in response to it all diesel engines being "crap" and "boring". Those are not crap or boring feats, they are interesting and unusual in a petrol dominated forum/thread/world. I genuinely thought that was obvious tho.

All Im trying to highlight is we shouldnt, as motoring enthusiasts, discredit an entire breed of engine until you have tried more than a bog standard 4pot turbo-diesel which never was designed for performance. They are no more exciting than a 1.4L Petrol Polo, nor are they meant to be.

Im speaking from experience and call me smug, but Im pretty confident from the replies most of the diesel bashing was done by those that havent tried both fast diesel and fast petrol.

kona

Matt Simis wrote: »

It was in response to it all diesel engines being "crap" and "boring". Those are not crap or boring feats, they are interesting and unusual in a petrol dominated forum/thread/world. I genuinely thought that was obvious tho.

All Im trying to highlight is we shouldnt, as motoring enthusiasts, discredit an entire breed of engine until you have tried more than a bog standard 4pot turbo-diesel which never was designed for performance. They are no more exciting than a 1.4L Petrol Polo, nor are they meant to be.

Im speaking from experience and call me smug, but Im pretty confident from the replies most of the diesel bashing was done by those that havent tried both fast diesel and fast petrol.

120mph in a 91 mini is quite fast...IN CONTEXT.

it also does 0-60 in around about 7 secs.

NOW

put a v-tec in one and youre laughing, thats fast,scary and wild.

refined who wants refined??? just raw power.

sure diesel engines power alot of heavy machinery, ie ships, diesel electric trains..........but in a small space of a car, they are out of their territory.
pulling a 747 isnt that impressive, for a jeep, sure people pull 737s???

JHMEG

Matt Simis wrote: »

It was in response to it all diesel engines being "crap" and "boring". Those are not crap or boring feats, they are interesting and unusual

No, they are interesting alright, no doubt. They are also pointless -- my question asked what the point was.

E92

if you think diesel is slow, then you should just look at this video, and then tell me if diesels are still slow.

Matt Simis

E92 wrote: »

if you think diesel is slow, then you should just look at this video, and then tell me if diesels are still slow.

You link isnt working for me, but here is another:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=U-6Fc5CK1As

Porsche Cayenne Turbo (500BHP, 4.8L V8 Twin turbo Petrol) vs Touareg V10 (310BHP, 5.0L Twin Turbo Diesel), if the submitter got the models correct. Its interesting to see the strengths of the engine are in different places, the Cayenne (which on paper is much faster) pulls away as the speed picks up, the V10 was faster off the line.

Wossack

guess e92 meant this vid (one too many letters)



Just out of interest, whats the fastest time a diesel has done the nurburgring?