What do y'all think of diesel cars??

R.O.R

aristotle25 wrote: »

Go test drive a BMW 535D which is probably the best diesel car on the market.

Twin turbo, 0-60 is 6.1 seconds and still can do 40+ mpg.

Does it take that long to get to 60?

Think I'll try the new A6 3.0Tdi Twin Turbo with 313bhp and quattro. 0-100km/h in 5.1 seconds and combined consumption of 44.14 mpg (6.4 l/100km).

creedp

R.O.R wrote: »

Does it take that long to get to 60?

Think I'll try the new A6 3.0Tdi Twin Turbo with 313bhp and quattro. 0-100km/h in 5.1 seconds and combined consumption of 44.14 mpg (6.4 l/100km).

I could be overly pessimistic here but what are the chances of consistently getting near 44mpg with a 313bhp quattro, especially if also achieveing 5.1 seconds to 60!

aristotle25

R.O.R wrote: »

Does it take that long to get to 60?

Think I'll try the new A6 3.0Tdi Twin Turbo with 313bhp and quattro. 0-100km/h in 5.1 seconds and combined consumption of 44.14 mpg (6.4 l/100km).

Nice. You can't argue with those numbers

Gotta love diesels!

Tea 1000

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Mine seems to pull just fine from just under 1k revs, where most petrols don't exactly do well.
So 1k to 5k revs, that'll do me!
You can drive it just on torque, from 1k revs to 2k revs through town.
A lot of smaller petrols need their nuts revved off to get anything out of them.

What do you drive? Cause I've not driven a diesel with less than 6 cylinders that's happy below 1,500. They'll go, but they're not happy.

Tea 1000

R.O.R wrote: »

Does it take that long to get to 60?

Think I'll try the new A6 3.0Tdi Twin Turbo with 313bhp and quattro. 0-100km/h in 5.1 seconds and combined consumption of 44.14 mpg (6.4 l/100km).

Current 535d does it in 5.5. A6 AWD would help traction off the line. Alpina's D5 would be quicker. Impressive figures alright, but silly money for them.
And lets face it, you only buy diesel for financial reasons. Money no object, any true car nut would have the petrol! Throttle response and sound!

EPM

I find with my car nothing happens until close on 2k revs. It's all over by 4.5k revs but depending on your driving that's more than enough. I like having peak power exactly where you need it on the motorway, around town it can be a little lethargic at times and have too much go in other situations meaning you have to concentrate a little more to drive smoothly.

Ive driven some very petrol like diesels in recent weeks and they are still spent not too far north of 4k revs.

Tea 1000

EPM wrote: »

I find with my car nothing happens until close on 2k revs. It's all over by 4.5k revs but depending on your driving that's more than enough. I like having peak power exactly where you need it on the motorway, around town it can be a little lethargic at times and have too much go in other situations meaning you have to concentrate a little more to drive smoothly.

Ive driven some very petrol like diesels in recent weeks and they are still spent not too far north of 4k revs.

Ya, but you don't have diesel tinted goggles on! So you're saying it like it is rather than how you perceive it, unlike the previous diesel-heads!
Diesel is certainly good for lazy driving, with 80% of the performance just a toe extension away, but still... petrol is for car nuts. Diesel is for relaxing and saving money!

dr.fuzzenstein

Tea 1000 wrote: »

What do you drive? Cause I've not driven a diesel with less than 6 cylinders that's happy below 1,500. They'll go, but they're not happy.

'06 1.8 TDCI CMax, 115hp. It's not a rocket, but pulls fairly evenly from 1k, you can do "taxi style" town driving in it, where you need never bother to go above 2k rpm.
It's only below 900 rpm in a high gear that it starts sounding a bit stressed.

On the other hand, her MX5 with it's 1.6 16 valve DOHC engine wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding below 2k rpm, it's mild to 3k, starts to go above 4k and goes to the red line.
Pretty much the opposite. For cruising and commuting it's rubbish, but it's a blast on a B road.

R.O.R

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Current 535d does it in 5.5. A6 AWD would help traction off the line. Alpina's D5 would be quicker. Impressive figures alright, but silly money for them.
And lets face it, you only buy diesel for financial reasons. Money no object, any true car nut would have the petrol! Throttle response and sound!

According to the Alpina Configurator, a D5 also takes 5.1 seconds to 100km/h, but costs (in Germany) just a shade under €71,000. That makes the A6 an absolute bargain at just over €66,000 from your local Audi dealer. Especially when you consider that sort of money would have just about got a 523i Manual with leather in 07.

Given that the 3.0Tfsi is only €2,500 less to buy, is slower, costs more to tax, only does 8.2 L/100km and isn't that special to drive, I'd be putting my money in to the diesel, and turning up the radio.

Tea 1000

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

'06 1.8 TDCI CMax, 115hp. It's not a rocket, but pulls fairly evenly from 1k, you can do "taxi style" town driving in it, where you need never bother to go above 2k rpm.
It's only below 900 rpm in a high gear that it starts sounding a bit stressed.

On the other hand, her MX5 with it's 1.6 16 valve DOHC engine wouldn't pull the skin of a rice pudding below 2k rpm, it's mild to 3k, starts to go above 4k and goes to the red line.
Pretty much the opposite. For cruising and commuting it's rubbish, but it's a blast on a B road.

I've driven that engine in a Focus. Certainly doesn't pull well below around 1750-odd. Pulls, but not well!

R.O.R wrote: »

According to the Alpina Configurator, a D5 also takes 5.1 seconds to 100km/h, but costs (in Germany) just a shade under €71,000. That makes the A6 an absolute bargain at just over €66,000 from your local Audi dealer. Especially when you consider that sort of money would have just about got a 523i Manual with leather in 07.

Given that the 3.0Tfsi is only €2,500 less to buy, is slower, costs more to tax, only does 8.2 L/100km and isn't that special to drive, I'd be putting my money in to the diesel, and turning up the radio.

I agree. It's the best value A6 out there. But would you choose one over an S6, or RS6?
Also, In 5 years time, the TFSI will be for sale on some forecourt for less than half the price with half the miles than the diesel will be. Which would you buy then? would you pay twice the price for 0.4 seconds and a few bob a month saved on fuel?
On the D5, by quicker, I didn't mean 0-100km/h. It'd easily leave the A6 behind in any other speed range once the AWD advantage off the line is gone.

Yakuza

I am curious about the phrase "modern diesels". Is there a cutoff point in time that separates the old bulletproof oil burners from a modern one with all it's frippery? Do only diesels sold here post July 08 (to get around the new emissions-based tax regime) qualify as a modern diesel, or were they around before? Are any new diesels on the road now as good as the old school ones? Is it a brand thing?

Enquiring minds want to know

colm_mcm

Common rail is probably the most significant step.

challengemaster

EPM wrote: »

I find with my car nothing happens until close on 2k revs. It's all over by 4.5k revs but depending on your driving that's more than enough.

This

My power band in the 320cd is about 1800 - 4k revs, give or take, which sounds like ****e when you compare it to a vtec that revs to 11k revs, but it really isn't that bad.

In 4th, 70km/h @ 1800 and when power drops off at 4k I'm doing about 150km/h, with 2 gears left. Can happily sit in 6th at 240km/h and still have a bit to go.

At the end of the day, it's not a fecking race car, so why expect it to be one?

Tea 1000

challengemaster wrote: »

At the end of the day, it's not a fecking race car, so why expect it to be one?

Because most numpties in diesels talk them up like they are race cars. Shíte like "shurrr a 535d is faster in the real world than an M5... more torque too" and "my tdi-cr-170bhp-red i-red-d chipped to 346bhp would ate anything off the road" is often spouted.
Much more research and development has gone into diesels over the last 10 years than has gone into petrols. 12 years ago a typical 2 litre non-turbo diesel had less than 70bhp. A 2 litre petrol had around 120-ish bhp. A turbo diesel of the same capacity had less than 100bhp. A turbo petrol had probably anything between 165bhp to around 300bhp.
Today a 2 litre turbo diesel has an average ball park figure of 140-150bhp. A top end twin turbo diesel 2 litre has around 210bhp. A very unstressed Golf GTi 2 litre turbo petrol has 207bhp, while a N/A 2 litre petrol is probably still around 150bhp give or take.
We have 180bhp from 1.4 petrols.
So your point of "how much more performance do you need?" when talking about your diesel can be applied to any reasonable petrol, yet it's only the diesel heads boasting about performance!
An Octavia VRS is still slower than it's petrol brother.

EPM

Tea 1000 wrote: »

An Octavia VRS is still slower than it's petrol brother.

And that's only half the story (and I'm just using this car as an example from my experience) - the diesel is further limited by a lash of torque coming in so suddenly that spirited driving in 2nd and 3rd results in wheel spin and serious wheel tramp knocking a considerable amount off the claimed figures. I bought my car remapped and this carried on into 4th gear too.

For motorway driving ample performance is there pretty much instantly but at lower speeds a petrol would eat it very comprehensively. There has been a diesel DSG tested in ideal conditions posting a sub-7 second 0-60 dash compared to the claimed 8.2 or something like that. The reality on the road is a hell of a lot different. I'm considering chaning at the moment to a car with a lot less power but in the real world there isn't a lot in it terms of usability.

I have driven other lower powered diesels and found them as satisfying to drive as you didnt have to feather the throttle to get the best from them. I know this has a lot to do with the way the car is set up in the factory but they missed a trick with the vrs.

dr.fuzzenstein

Tea 1000 wrote: »

I've driven that engine in a Focus. Certainly doesn't pull well below around 1750-odd. Pulls, but not well!

I'm just so used to it, maybe to someone used to a lot more power it might feel slow (not slow, but not fast either), but there seems to be enough torque from 1100 rpm for keeping up with traffic without it struggling.
So, swimming with traffic in a relaxed manner, 1100rpm to just a nadge over 2000 rpm.
Of course if you want to exploit a gap or make a light, you'd want to keep it between 2-3000 revs.
Revving it higher than 4000 is unnecessary, but in a drag race (i.e. someone decided you're not getting past them), it can go to 4500 rpm no problems.
It will rev to near enough 5k, but will flash lights at me and won't be happy.
Mine is the 115 hp Zetec, there is also a 90-odd hp version, that might have different characteristics.

dr.fuzzenstein

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

..............
Revving it higher than 4000 is unnecessary, but in a drag race (i.e. someone decided you're not getting past them), it can go to 4500 rpm no problems.....................

.... in a drag race surely you'd change up well before 4500rpm?

creedp

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'm just so used to it, maybe to someone used to a lot more power it might feel slow (not slow, but not fast either), but there seems to be enough torque from 1100 rpm for keeping up with traffic without it struggling.
So, swimming with traffic in a relaxed manner, 1100rpm to just a nadge over 2000 rpm.
Of course if you want to exploit a gap or make a light, you'd want to keep it between 2-3000 revs.
Revving it higher than 4000 is unnecessary, but in a drag race (i.e. someone decided you're not getting past them), it can go to 4500 rpm no problems.
It will rev to near enough 5k, but will flash lights at me and won't be happy.
Mine is the 115 hp Zetec, there is also a 90-odd hp version, that might have different characteristics.

Can any mechanically minded persons advise if running a diesel car on very low revs in a high gear puts additional pressure on engine/gearbox/clutch. There is ongoing discussion with regard to DMF's going early in diesle cars and was wondering if driving habbits could be contributing to this issue

Max Power1

creedp wrote: »

Can any mechanically minded persons advise if running a diesel car on very low revs in a high gear puts additional pressure on engine/gearbox/clutch. There is ongoing discussion with regard to DMF's going early in diesle cars and was wondering if driving habbits could be contributing to this issue

Define very low?
For a diesel 1300-1500 isnt very low. I drive around town at about 1300-1500 rpm (just below the turbo kick-in :P ) to save fuel and I dont see it as being bad for the engine etc.

800-1000 RPM on the other hand is a different story

dr.fuzzenstein

Max Power1 wrote: »

Define very low?
For a diesel 1300-1500 isnt very low. I drive around town at about 1300-1500 rpm (just below the turbo kick-in :P ) to save fuel and I dont see it as being bad for the engine etc.

800-1000 RPM on the other hand is a different story

Sounds about right.
Another way to kill a diesel:
Friend of mine (long time ago) put his Golf diesel into third at the lights and let the clutch out slowly.
The engine didn't stall, but kangaroo-hopped the car along the road, t'was some banging.
Coolant hose ruptured, we fixed it, but it drank coolant afterwards, I think he cracked the head.

challengemaster

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Because most numpties in diesels talk them up like they are race cars. Shíte like "shurrr a 535d is faster in the real world than an M5... more torque too"

I'm fairly sure we've a boardsie that owns both and has said that real world use, the 535d is better.

TheBazman

challengemaster wrote: »

I'm fairly sure we've a boardsie that owns both and has said that real world use, the 535d is better.

I've had an E60 M5 and have an E60 535d. -
Is the 535d faster - No
Is it more dramatic - No
Do you get as much enjoyment out of driving it - No

However- given that 90% of the time you do not want to rag the ar$e out of your car and you just want to deal with the slog of a daily commute then the 535d is a much, much, much better car. Mine returns around 32mpg but above 35 is possible. The M5 average was 17mpg taking it handy. I do around 500 miles per week. Tax is more or less the same, as are some other running costs like tyres etc. There are niggles with trying to run an M5 as an everyday car - practical stuff like neither run flats nor a spare - just a can of foam and a mini compressor- you dont really want to be dealing with that at 6am in the rain on your way to work.

In terms of performance as I have said above the M5 is faster, however in reality it only comes alive >5k rpm and particularly above 7k. You just wont driver everywhere at those sort of rpm. You get the torque from the 535d all over the curve.

Oh and the gearbox on the M5 was brutal - particularly for city driving - it would either change when you didn't want to or else wouldn't change when you did. I can confirm however they have that sorted in the F10

There was also always the worry running an M5 that at a certain point something was going to go that would cost several thousand to fix - and that could have been with well under 100k miles on the clock. I am heading for 150k miles on the 535d and have had no bother. In fact I read on another forum that someone has a 535d with over 450k kms on the clock - happy days.

All in all the (for my circumstances) the 535d is the best car I could have and that includes the M5.

SeanW

Yakuza wrote: »

I am curious about the phrase "modern diesels". Is there a cutoff point in time that separates the old bulletproof oil burners from a modern one with all it's frippery? Do only diesels sold here post July 08 (to get around the new emissions-based tax regime) qualify as a modern diesel, or were they around before? Are any new diesels on the road now as good as the old school ones? Is it a brand thing?

Enquiring minds want to know

Well, anything post July 2008 definitely qualifies as "modern" with all that that entails.

My car is a 1999 Avensis and it doesn't have those things, though I cannot say with any certainty how far back you as a buyer would have to go. I'd imagine you'd be fine with anything pre 2001.

Poulgorm

Yakuza wrote: »

I am curious about the phrase "modern diesels". Is there a cutoff point in time that separates the old bulletproof oil burners from a modern one with all it's frippery? Do only diesels sold here post July 08 (to get around the new emissions-based tax regime) qualify as a modern diesel, or were they around before? Are any new diesels on the road now as good as the old school ones? Is it a brand thing?

Enquiring minds want to know

I think the cut off point varies with different models. I bought a Volvo S40 1.6 diesel in May 2007: 3 years and 80,000 km later, I found out (to my cost) about DPFs, DMFs and EGRs. I was about to discover turbos too, but I traded it in on time.

Some models did not fit DPFs until much later - it became legally binding only on 01 Jamuary 2011.

Some (many?) petrol cars are fitted with DMFs now also: be careful out there

Big Nasty

Poulgorm wrote: »

I think the cut off point varies with different models. I bought a Volvo S40 1.6 diesel in May 2007: 3 years and 80,000 km later, I found out (to my cost) about DPFs, DMFs and EGRs. I was about to discover turbos too, but I traded it in on time.

Some models did not fit DPFs until much later - it became legally binding only on 01 Jamuary 2011.

Some (many?) petrol cars are fitted with DMFs now also: be careful out there

Would the cut off point not be the transition to common rail?

Satanta

In 2004 Peugeot were using what would be considered a modern diesel. I think that engine also went into fords and citroens at the same time.

Poulgorm

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Would the cut off point not be the transition to common rail?

I thought the poster referred to the time when diesels were (generally) bullet proof up to 250,000 miles. Then, along came DPFs, DMFs etc etc...

Leonard Hofstadter

Diesels are still reliable (usually) when they're serviced on time and not driven around town very often.

Problem is a lot of Irish motorists are buying them to drive to the shops or not driving them at higher speeds, this coupled with the love some people have for not servicing their car means that they now are "less reliable" than before.

Basically modern diesels are far less tolerant of abuse than before, and when they go wrong they cost more to fix.

I prefer petrol because I don't do the miles to justify driving a diesel and all the things that matter to anyone who likes driving: throttle response, better handling (because of less weight over the front wheels), quieter and better sounding, much wider power band, more linear power delivery, no lag etc, but I think it is foolish to conclude that one fuel is automatically better than the other. If I was driving on the motorway most of the time and/or doing a lot of miles I'd happily own a diesel, when they're working they really have come on leaps and bounds in the past few years.

MCMLXXV

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Would the cut off point not be the transition to common rail?

Wouldn't think so, common rail diesels have been common enough since 2000 ish

Tea 1000

TheBazman wrote: »

I've had an E60 M5 and have an E60 535d. -
Is the 535d faster - No
Is it more dramatic - No
Do you get as much enjoyment out of driving it - No

However- given that 90% of the time you do not want to rag the ar$e out of your car and you just want to deal with the slog of a daily commute then the 535d is a much, much, much better car. Mine returns around 32mpg but above 35 is possible. The M5 average was 17mpg taking it handy. I do around 500 miles per week. Tax is more or less the same, as are some other running costs like tyres etc. There are niggles with trying to run an M5 as an everyday car - practical stuff like neither run flats nor a spare - just a can of foam and a mini compressor- you dont really want to be dealing with that at 6am in the rain on your way to work.

In terms of performance as I have said above the M5 is faster, however in reality it only comes alive >5k rpm and particularly above 7k. You just wont driver everywhere at those sort of rpm. You get the torque from the 535d all over the curve.

Oh and the gearbox on the M5 was brutal - particularly for city driving - it would either change when you didn't want to or else wouldn't change when you did. I can confirm however they have that sorted in the F10

There was also always the worry running an M5 that at a certain point something was going to go that would cost several thousand to fix - and that could have been with well under 100k miles on the clock. I am heading for 150k miles on the 535d and have had no bother. In fact I read on another forum that someone has a 535d with over 450k kms on the clock - happy days.

All in all the (for my circumstances) the 535d is the best car I could have and that includes the M5.

Exactly, that sums up my point. Diesel's are best for lazy driving, just get in and forget about it. They don't reward grabbing them by the scruff of the neck.
But I'd argue that turbo petrols are overlooked by diesel heads who complain that "you have to rev the nuts off them...". The new M5 has more torque than your 535d. Why? Because it's turbo. Therefore it should have the same sort of lower down grunt that the diesel has. It's the turbo that gives diesel the low down grunt, not the magic of the fuel! A Diesel goes from 1800rpm cause that's when the turbo kicks in. A 335i will go from 1500rpm cause it's first turbo starts at that point.
Any proper petrol head will admit that for a good blast in a proper drivers car aside from the well-sorted chassis, you need a good linear and long power delivery with instant throttle response and a gearbox that's sweet as a nut. Diesel doesn't give you any of those things.
For everyday driving and when you're not in the mood, you need economy and enough power just there waiting for when you want to overtake without bothering yourself to change down. Turbo diesels give you that.