Diesels...... rip?

jimgoose

Jesus. wrote: »

Cough.......... gearbox

Molest me not with such inanities, Messiah . See my post above about mandating a 7-speed ZF autobox in all diesels. When I want to play the Gearbox Bagpipes I'll use an OW-01!

Tea 1000

Jesus. wrote: »

You wouldn't find it more comfortable in a low revving, lazy engine on a Motorway, just ticking over, than you would having to be at 4k revs doing the same speeds?



You've just answered your own question mate.....kind of. Not about feeling faster per se but that effortless low-end shove you're talking about is where the comfort is. You simply don't have to work the engine as hard. Its a nicer experience IMO.

Cleve knows what I'm talking about. Alas I ain't got the money for a lazy big V8

It's not that much effort to change gear though! In fact, with the right engine/gearbox/chassis combination it's actually fun!

H3llR4iser

Jesus. wrote: »

You wouldn't find it more comfortable in a low revving, lazy engine on a Motorway, just ticking over, than you would having to be at 4k revs doing the same speeds?

Not really, I understand why some people would, but it'd make no difference for me - I know both engines are working within their specs, and that depending on the speed they both might still have some reserve.

I recently drove a 159 2.0 JTDm, and at motorway speeds there's no real difference with my own petrol burner - 3000ish vs 2000ish rpm, similar noise level. Mine of course is more at ease dropping into 5th if you need to pick some speed up relatively fast, while the diesel just blasts through 6th - that's about it. It has to be said that, somehow, Alfa made the diesel sound decent and not like a Ford Transit - which a lot of 4 and 5 cylinders diesels still sound like.

Jesus. wrote: »

You've just answered your own question mate.....kind of. Not about feeling faster per se but that effortless low-end shove you're talking about is where the comfort is. You simply don't have to work the engine as hard. Its a nicer experience IMO.

Cleve knows what I'm talking about. Alas I ain't got the money for a lazy big V8

But most people won't understand it as such; All the "never go above the 3 in the rev counter" brigade will just think a 1.4 diesel is faster than a 2.0 petrol due to the fact it feels like it "pushes" more in the limited band they use.

Oh and I would already be happy with a V6, but really ain't keen on the idea of handing nearly two grands tax over

Jesus.

I understand exactly what you're saying, Hellraiser. To be honest, I think you touched on a reason why I'm more comfortable driving our diesel out on the Motorway and that's fuel economy. When you rag a smallish petrol she starts guzzling. But to be fair, that's not really less "comfortable" is it?

Only in my mind it might be because I'm thinking like a miser!

H3llR4iser

Jesus. wrote: »

I understand exactly what you're saying, Hellraiser. To be honest, I think you touched on a reason why I'm more comfortable driving our diesel out on the Motorway and that's fuel economy. When you rag a smallish petrol she starts guzzling. But to be fair, that's not really less "comfortable" is it?

Only in my mind it might be because I'm thinking like a miser!

That is certainly true, any engine driven near its limit will drink very happily - and if the limit happens to be motorway speed (think Micra) then there's definitely an issue. But to be honest I thought we were comparing like for like, e.g. 2.0 Turbodiesel vs 2.0 NA petrol

Jesus.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

But to be honest I thought we were comparing like for like, e.g. 2.0 Turbodiesel vs 2.0 NA petrol

That's a fair comparison. Some guys don't like comparing turbo diesels to NA petrols but I think its fair, if only due to the fact that all diesels on the roads are turbo'd and almost all petrols aint. Yes a decent 2 liter petrol would be nice and grand at Motorway speeds.

My car's a 1.6 NA petrol and herself's is a 1.5 turbo diesel. The latter just feels more comfortable on the Motorway for one real reason; revving less and for one reason in my mind; economy

This has turned into a Diesel vs Petrol preference thread, the OP os about the carcinogenic fumes spewed out by dielsels and what needs to be done to clean our cities air.

Really don't care is some people prefere the powerband of a diesel.

Popoutman

Special Circumstances wrote: »

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.

The engine is more efficient when on boost than when off boost. Simple thermodynamics being the reason why. When you measure fuel flow versus work done, the incoming charge mixture is more efficient when pressurised more. The energy to do the pressurisation is effectively free when harvested from the exhaust gases.

I presume that you meant that you should drive with less torque being requested from the engine? That's valid to a point. I know that for the VAG 1.9 engine, it's most efficient in NA at about 1500 rpm, but it's more efficient for the fuel used and power output gained, when the turbo is working at its most efficient at about 1900-2200 rpm.

ShadowHearth

Only sow this thread now.....


AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Tea 1000

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Coal isn't the enemy you think it is, smokeless coal is the law so there shouldn't be clouds of smoke in your estate, but people will burn what they like, and whats cheap. Which is some import crap coal. The carbon tax only makes people broke.
Diesel still does suit a lot of people, but in reality the market should be more like 20% than the 70% + that it is currently. EV's are ideal second cars, but are too expensive currently as a second car for many.
These things take time, you can't enforce it over night.

Smokeless coal might be cleaner but it's far from clean but I would welcome a smoky coal ban in my village but I guess the Government doesn't think we've the right to breathable air ! People should be ashamed for burning such filthy fuel, there is a smoky fuel ban in Carlow Town and I regularly see smoke from chimneys.


Diesel does indeed suit a lot of people, not denying that. And due to the limited amount of electrics bought since the Leaf came out in 2011 it makes them hard to find 2nd hand. But they're still suitable for a hell of a lot of people either way. Leaf isn't that expensive to buy and is ultra cheap to run.

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Ah in fairness, the Prius isn't a pretty car. It's an average looking thing when compared to similar MPV type cars. Toyota interiors have been crap for the last 6 years or so.

The current Prius to me is a lot better looking than the Golf which is one of the most boring cars made. A

I wouldn't call the interior crap by any means but it's certainly not as nice as the German cars, the better spec ones that is. Considering the Prius interior is mostly made from recycled materials I think it's quiet good. But hey each to their own I suppose.

Jesus.

Mad Lad, how do I stop being alerted by email every time someone has posted in a thread I'm on?

I must have clicked a button when I signed up last year to alert me or something and its doing my head in. I have to delete about 20 emails every day from my Inbox.

Jesus.

Jesus. wrote: »

Mad Lad, how do I stop being alerted by email every time someone has posted in a thread I'm on?

I must have clicked a button when I signed up last year to alert me or something and its doing my head in. I have to delete about 20 emails every day from my Inbox.

Click the below link, under "messages & Notifications" "default thread subscription mode"

Click the drop down box and select the required option. This should apply for future threads but you'll have to select manually the un-subscribe button of every thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/profile.php?do=editoptions

Special Circumstances

Popoutman wrote: »

The engine is more efficient when on boost than when off boost. Simple thermodynamics being the reason why. When you measure fuel flow versus work done, the incoming charge mixture is more efficient when pressurised more. The energy to do the pressurisation is effectively free when harvested from the exhaust gases.

I presume that you meant that you should drive with less torque being requested from the engine? That's valid to a point. I know that for the VAG 1.9 engine, it's most efficient in NA at about 1500 rpm, but it's more efficient for the fuel used and power output gained, when the turbo is working at its most efficient at about 1900-2200 rpm.

I'll put it this way, theoretical efficiency doesn't necessarily mean less fuel used, unless you believe in "the more you spend the more you save". I'm sure my subaru is very efficient at turning chemical energy into kinetic energy when its on boost, but I couldn't afford to drive it on boost all day long.

Hachiko

lads lads lads

we all know about the daysul fans, great yokes, cheaaap tax too etc.

what about the fact they splew cancerous gasses that would make a meth lab seem like mary poppins spare room.?

IMO too many people are buying the auld daysuls just becasue they are told by such and such a person its the thing to do, (lets not mention the tax!). TBH, most people who sold perfectly fine petrol cars all them years ago and now how are they getting on, have they the loans cleared for the new modern daysul that replaced it? how much did they actually save in the first place.?

I will admit loads of people who have owned them have justified the ownership due to stellar mileage, but I would say thousands also have just not gained, well much at all (repairs hello) and in doing so splew all that crap into the atmosphere.

call joe etc....


*goes out to rev v6 petrol.

Gazzmonkey

Turned into a 'petrol better than diesel' thread.... yawn

Sam Kade

Hachiko wrote: »

lads lads lads

we all know about the daysul fans, great yokes, cheaaap tax too etc.

what about the fact they splew cancerous gasses that would make a meth lab seem like mary poppins spare room.?

IMO too many people are buying the auld daysuls just becasue they are told by such and such a person its the thing to do, (lets not mention the tax!). TBH, most people who sold perfectly fine petrol cars all them years ago and now how are they getting on, have they the loans cleared for the new modern daysul that replaced it? how much did they actually save in the first place.?

I will admit loads of people who have owned them have justified the ownership due to stellar mileage, but I would say thousands also have just not gained, well much at all (repairs hello) and in doing so splew all that crap into the atmosphere.

call joe etc....


*goes out to rev v6 petrol.

They still can't figure out that the saving is the difference in fuel cost between petrol and diesel minus all the repairs and extra servicing with diesels divide the extra cost of the diesel car by the savings to see how many years you'll be driving it before you can start saving.

I know a man that traded his 07 corolla petrol for a 09 auris diesel and paid 7k for the privilege because he thought the corolla was guzzling petrol. He does 10,000 km a year. The corolla did 35mpg as he's a hard driver and the auris does 50mpg. The petrol cost him €1870/year and the diesel costs him €1210/year that's a saving of €660/year €7,000/€660=10.6 years. So it will take him 10.6 years before he starts making a saving and that doesn't include extra repairs and servicing of the diesel. I wonder where the auris will be in 10 years.

Hachiko

unreal

mickdw

Maybe a large portion of the 7k was down to the man wanting a new car?
From some of the comments on here, you would swear nobody ever changed cars just because they wanted to or just to keep a fresh car instead of letting car get old and worthless and then having to find a huge lump of cash to upgrade. To alot of people, 3 to 4k per year depreciation is an acceptable figure if it means they are running a newish, reliable fuel efficient car.
From some of the comments I see here, you would think nobody ever changed cars before the 'cheape' tax came in given the way people work out pay back time based purely on tax saving. Similarly, here, we have diesel saving being quoted as the only significant figure when the truth is that at some stage, the corolla driver will have to upgrade anyway which will result in outlay of cash. How much that outlay is per year depends on how regularly someone upgrades together with a whole host of variables but there is no doubt that changing even from new every 3 or 4 years makes alot of sense to some people.

sh1tstirrer

mickdw wrote: »

Maybe a large portion of the 7k was down to the man wanting a new car?
From some of the comments on here, you would swear nobody ever changed cars just because they wanted to or just to keep a fresh car instead of letting car get old and worthless and then having to find a huge lump of cash to upgrade. To alot of people, 3 to 4k per year depreciation is an acceptable figure if it means they are running a newish, reliable fuel efficient car.
From some of the comments I see here, you would think nobody ever changed cars before the 'cheape' tax came in given the way people work out pay back time based purely on tax saving. Similarly, here, we have diesel saving being quoted as the only significant figure when the truth is that at some stage, the corolla driver will have to upgrade anyway which will result in outlay of cash. How much that outlay is per year depends on how regularly someone upgrades together with a whole host of variables but there is no doubt that changing even from new every 3 or 4 years makes alot of sense to some people.

My eyes hurt reading that, he did say that the man wanted to change to a diesel because the corolla was drinking petrol.

Jesus.

Sam Kade wrote: »

They still can't figure out that the saving is the difference in fuel cost between petrol and diesel minus all the repairs and extra servicing with diesels divide the extra cost of the diesel car by the savings to see how many years you'll be driving it before you can start saving..

Not if you buy a decent Daysul second hand. I think the furore about DMFs and DPFs is way OTT to be honest. Its scaremongering by petrol-heads. They're not nearly as bad as they're made out to be, especially if you do a good bit of Motorway driving.

No matter what way you spin it, if you put in the miles, there can be big savings to be had by going diesel. Not to mention the fact that some folk actually prefer the torquey drive from a diesel compared to the roaring and screaming of an overworked 1.6 liter petrol

jca

Jesus. wrote: »

Not if you buy a decent Daysul second hand. I think the furore about DMFs and DPFs is way OTT to be honest. Its scaremongering by petrol-heads. They're not nearly as bad as they're made out to be, especially if you do a good bit of Motorway driving.

No matter what way you spin it, if you put in the miles, there can be big savings to be had by going diesel. Not to mention the fact that some folk actually prefer the torquey drive from a diesel compared to the roaring and screaming of an overworked 1.6 liter petrol

A good bit of motorway driving..... That's the crucial bit;)

walus

Personally I do not like diesels for three reasons: 1. narrow power bandwidth (need for shuffling gears all the time), 2. Exhaust emission, 3. Engine rattle and noise. I think that the future with a turbo petrol/hybrid technology. Cannot find a way of justify driving diesel.

Gazzmonkey

walus wrote: »

Personally I do not like diesels for three reasons: 1. narrow power bandwidth (need for shuffling gears all the time), 2. Exhaust emission, 3. Engine rattle and noise. I think that the future with a turbo petrol/hybrid technology. Cannot find a way of justify driving diesel.

Your behind the times friend...

A modern diesel is none of these.

My A4 pulls well in boost from 1500rpm up to nearly redline

With DPF there is no visible fumes from the exhaust

With CRTDI it's many times quieter

Regards,

Sure a 1.6 diesel will have more torque than the equivalent 1.6 petrol but manual gear boxes these days are geared too high so automatics are definitely far more enjoyable to drive with diesels and the useless annoying torque band is unnoticeable.

walus

walus wrote: »

Personally I do not like diesels for three reasons: 1. narrow power bandwidth (need for shuffling gears all the time), 2. Exhaust emission, 3. Engine rattle and noise. I think that the future with a turbo petrol/hybrid technology. Cannot find a way of justify driving diesel.

Agree with all the above but no. 1 can be eliminated with a good automatic.

walus

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Your behind the times friend...

A modern diesel is none of these.

My A4 pulls well in boost from 1500rpm up to nearly redline

With DPF there is no visible fumes from the exhaust

With CRTDI it's many times quieter

Regards,

I disagree. What's nearly readline? 4000 rpm? That's only 2500 rpms - bandwidth like I said - narrow. I'm more interested in what one inhales not sees. The fact that you can't see the fumes does not mean they are not harmful. Whatever way you look at it these engines are still rattly and noisy.

walus

Deleted User wrote: »

Agree with all the above but no. 1 can be eliminated with a good automatic.

I agree - if diesel it has to be an automatic. Takes the clutch and dmf problems out of the equation as well.

Gazzmonkey

walus wrote: »

I disagree. What's nearly readline? 4000 rpm? That's only 2500 rpms - bandwidth - lika I said - narrow. I'm more interested in what one inhales not sees. The fact that you can't see the fumes does not mean they are not harmful. Whatever way you look at it these engines are still rattly and noisy.

No, it would be 5000rpm... my corolla G6 was only 6000rpm

Never said the fumes were harmless... in fact, they are toxic but so are petrol fumes

Never said the engine was quite, but it's a vast improvement over PDTDI

Jesus.

walus wrote: »

Personally I do not like diesels for three reasons: 1. narrow power bandwidth (need for shuffling gears all the time)

Its the opposite with Motorway driving though. With the extra torque you don't have to shift down compared with a similar sized petrol where you'd more likely have to.

walus

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

No, it would be 5000rpm... my corolla G6 was only 6000rpm

Never said the fumes were harmless... in fact, they are toxic but so are petrol fumes

Never said the engine was quite, but it's a vast improvement over PDTDI

What's a point of revving it above 4000rpm? No torque and power there.
Petrol fumes are also harmful but 20 times less than diesel - that is a big difference. A difference that is responsible for the fact that the quality of air in most european cities is just as bad as it was 15 years ago!
I would be shocked if they could not improve on an old PD technology in terms of noise etc. It does not change the fact that my statement is true.