Are Diesels Worth It Anymore

Marcus.Aurelius · 23-05-2008 10:46am

JHMEG wrote: »

That is all true. I6 is perfectly balanced.

However balance is not what I look for, at all, ever. There are sooo many more important things in an engine.

Oh sorry, its 228 bhp is that better?

E92 · 23-05-2008 10:48am

vectra wrote: »

So,
You are saying that a 1.4 TSI SEAT Leon Petrol would be as economical or near as economical as my SEAT Cordoba 1.4 tdi S when I do most of my driving in short journeys ?:rolleyes:

No I'm saying that a direct injection petrol can be considerably more efficient than a conventional petrol, which therefore erodes some of the economy advantage of diesel over petrol. Besides which it's hardly fair to compare a Leon with a Cordoba.

Direct injection petrols are particularly efficient if you ease up on the throttle.

I know all of this because I have a direct injection petrol Volvo S40 that will do 55-60 mpg(as well as an E34 520i) on the open road if I stick to the speed limit and drive it gently. Officially it does 50 mpg in out of town driving, but if you're careful and watch the mpg meter you can get plenty more from it.

My old man has a 1.8 Avensis and if you drive it in similar circumstances you get around 45-49 mpg, maybe you'll get just above 50 if you're really careful. Officially the Volvo does 40.9 mpg and the Toyota does 39.2.

As direct injection engines go, the Volvo's is a very old fashioned system(since it is actually the infamous GDI system no longer used by Mitsubishi), being less smooth than a conventional 4 pot, it sounds like a diesel on start up, especially when it's cold, it's noisier than a conventional petrol engine and has a complete intolerance of low quality petrol, which causes excess build ups of carbon in things like the throttle body, which then makes it stick a little due to excess carbon from poor quality petrol, so it can cause a delay between the time you put your foot down and the engine responding. It was very advanced techology when it first came out in 1996 though.

But just as with diesels, the technology has improved considerably since then, and modern direct injection petrols are no louder than conventional petrols, even when they're cold. I'm sure they have long sorted the fuel issues with direct injection petrols and anyway the sulphur content has come way down in petrol as it has with diesel.

Then when performance is required, direct injection engines have a high performance mode which gives them greater performance over an old fashioned indirect injection petrol, so you have the best of both worlds.

alexmcred · 23-05-2008 11:06am

E92 wrote: »

No I'm saying that a direct injection petrol can considerably more efficient than a conventional petrol, which therefore erodes some of the economy advantage of diesel over petrol. Besides which it's hardly fair to compare a Leon with a Cordoba.

Direct injection petrols are particularly efficient if you ease up on the throttle.

I know all of this because I have a direct injection petrol Volvo S40 that will do 55-60 mpg on the open road if I stick to the speed limit and drive it gently. Officially it does 50 mpg in out of town driving, but if you're careful and watch the mpg meter you can get plenty more from it.

My old man has a 1.8 Avensis and if you drive it in similar circumstances you get around 45-49 mpg, maybe you'll get just above 50 if you're really careful. Officially the Volvo does 40.9 mpg and the Toyota does 39.2.

As direct injection engines go, it is a very old fashioned system, being less smooth than a conventional 4 pot, it sounds like a diesel on start up, especially when it's cold, it's noisier than a conventional petrol engine and has a complete intolerance of low quality petrol, which causes excess build ups of carbon in things like the throttle body, which then makes it stick a little due to excess carbon from poor quality petrol, so it can cause a delay between the time you put your foot down and the engine responding.

But just as with diesels, the technology has improved considerably since then, and modern direct injection petrols are no louder than conventional petrols, even when they're cold. I'm sure they have long sorted the fuel issues with direct injection petrols and anyway the sulphur content has come way down in petrol as it has with diesel.

Then when performance is required, direct injection engines have a high performance mode which gives them greater performance over an old fashioned indirect injection petrol, so you have the best of both worlds.

Have a new Golf 140bhp 1.4 TSI and the power it delivers accross the rev range is great. Was looking at a 1.9 TDI SEAT leon before it and the TSI is far better at power delivery. Also the road tax is a lot cheaper.

Zube · 23-05-2008 11:17am

alexmcred wrote: »

Also the road tax is a lot cheaper.

Not for long.

E92 · 23-05-2008 11:47am

To be fair the best comparison is between the 1.4 TSI 122 bhp and the 1.9 TDI 105.

To show you the kind of progress direct injection petrols have made, just look at the comparisons between the 1.6 102 bhp Golf and the 1.4 TSI 122 bhp, particularly in the areas of economy and emissions.

E92 · 23-05-2008 4:17pm

Oilrig wrote: »

Whats confusing about the Metric system?

At least you can use a calculator to solve it... try that with Ounces, Pounds & Stones...

The US have been trying to convert to Metric for 40 years...

...and still measures temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit.

The US doesn't know what the metric system is, watch any American programme on TV and it's always old fashioned meaurements they use.

The Americans still think guns are a good idea ffs!

JHMEG · 23-05-2008 4:42pm

E92 wrote: »

To show you the kind of progress direct injection petrols have made, just look at the comparisons between the 1.6 102 bhp Golf and the 1.4 TSI 122 bhp, particularly in the areas of economy and emissions.

A proper comparison would be between the 1.4 TSI 122bhp Golf and a 1.3 Turbo 130bhp Glanza. *Both* have turbos, one is a new design DI, the other is not.

maoleary wrote: »

Oh sorry, its 228 bhp is that better?

Only if it's meeting or exceeding 100bhp per litre. Or is twin turbo.:p

E92 · 24-05-2008 10:47pm

Diesel sales in Europe are widely expected to fall after 2015 when new emissions standards come in to force that will only make diesels as clean as petrol were made clean in 2005: source.

Already Merc and BMW have decided to cancel their V8 diesels. They're not cancelling their V8, V10 or even V12 petrols though. Hmm. Has anyone noticed how quiet car makers have gone about diesels that are 50 state compliant in the US recently? That's because it turns out that the diesels that were supposed to be 50 state compliant in the US only meet this years standards. When the new Californian standards come in to place next year diesels will no longer be able to be sold in at least 5 and up to 12 of the 50 US states.

Contrary to popular belief, Europe's emission standards, especially for diesels are one of the easiest to pass in the developed world, and make a mockery of the claim by the EU that the EU is a world leader in environmental standards.

Of course all of this comes as we get ready to become the quickest country to go from petrol to diesel in the entire EU thanks to the new VRT rules, and diesels will, in the short to medium term at least, be the best choice for most people buying a new car after July. How ironic really.

The rising price of oil, especially diesel vis a vis petrol all over the world is starting to put the brakes on diesel sales already and 2007 may well have been the strongest year for diesel sales in Europe, confirming what I have long said about diesel: it's an expensive fad that we will grow out of. Petrol engines are getting more efficient(direct injection) and more powerful, as well as a lot more torquey(turbo/supercharging), so they are regaining the performance advantage they always had over diesel, and clawing back some of the economy advantage.

In the period Jan-April 08, diesel sales in Germany were 45.9%. In 2007 they were 47.7%(the best year for diesel sales in Germany, at one stage they nearly hit 50% there last year), so they have declined by 1.8%, and they'll start to fall even further across Europe as the price of diesel continues to rise.

Phaetonman · 25-05-2008 9:55am

The performance of diesels is great... until you hit about 3-3,500 rpm and then they lose the will to live and perform

I was doing 90mph in my diesel yesterday and it was doing 2800rpm. You don't go past 3000rpm so no problem. Much quieter than an equivalent petrol taht would be pumping away at 4500rpm. Tdi power!

vectra · 25-05-2008 10:16am

E92 wrote: »

Diesel sales in Europe are widely expected to fall after 2015 when new emissions standards come in to force that will only make diesels as clean as petrol were made clean in 2005:

Thats 7 years time..!! :eek:

if petrols are coming on that good then do you think Diesels are going to stay as they are now?
Look at the jump Diesels have made over the past few years.

All rubbish I say ..
I have had petrol cars all my life and they did nothing only drank petrol once the foot was pushed down and also around town.
Since i bought my TDi I will never go back to a petrol sucker.

maidhc · 25-05-2008 10:41am

E92 wrote: »

The rising price of oil, especially diesel vis a vis petrol all over the world is starting to put the brakes on diesel sales already and 2007 may well have been the strongest year for diesel sales in Europe, confirming what I have long said about diesel: it's an expensive fad that we will grow out of. Petrol engines are getting more efficient(direct injection) and more powerful, as well as a lot more torquey(turbo/supercharging), so they are regaining the performance advantage they always had over diesel, and clawing back some of the economy advantage.

Both diesel and petrol engines are a fad, and I can assure you once a better alternative is found both with be gone out the window. The sooner the better IMO, as both are inefficient survivors from the age of steam that have only survivied so long because of the relative cheapness of fuel.

E92 · 25-05-2008 1:39pm

The petrol engine has been by far the most popular source of fuel in cars since they first came on stream in 1886.

It was always by far the most popular fuel type until about 4-5 years ago, when diesels started becoming really popular, but in Europe only. Even in the late 90s(and we had the very first common rail diesels then) diesel didn't even account for a quarter of sales. Only in the last few years has diesel started selling in the same numbers as petrol, and that's in Europe only! Everywhere else petrol still is the dominant form of transport.

BMW and Merc have seen the light on diesel as they have cancelled their V8 diesels. Merc may continue to use their V8 diesels for AMG models only(they will be going down the BMW EfficientDynamics route regardless for all future AMG models), but they will be re-mapped versions of existing V8 diesels. For all other Mercs the V8 diesels will be "phased out", and when the new F01/F02 7 series comes out later on this year, the only BMW that could be had with a V8 diesel will now be gone, as the current V8 diesel(which was LHD only anyway) is going to be replaced by the twin turbo straight 6 diesel found in the 535d/335d etc, but with more power of course:D.

Petrol will continue to be the dominant form of transport for cars long after diesel will be. And something that managed to just about account for half the sales of cars in one continent for a few years IS a fad compared to something that still is by far the most common fuel type in use throughout the world 122 years after the first car was produced.

And it will be around for another good few years to come at least. We'll still be on crude oil until about 2050. Hydrogen won't really take off till 2020 at the earliest, and that's being optimistic.

Bio ethanol(which can run in petrol engines surprise surprise) could be the solution to all our problems. However there are too many iussues surrounding it at the moment. Thus far any alternatives from petrol(or dare I say diesel) have been a false dawn.

peasant · 25-05-2008 2:02pm

Whatever about cars, up to now there is no credible alternative to diesel in heavy machinery like trucks, buses, vans, construction equipment.

Spiralling diesel costs for those applications are going to hit us all ...whether we drive a diesel or not.

25-05-2008 2:49pm

One thing which I haven't seen touched upon in this thread is the longevity of diesel engines. It's quite possible to get over 150,000 miles out of a diesel engine whereas a petrol would be on its last legs assuming it even gets that far.

But then again, who keeps a car longer than a couple of years in this day and age...

vectra · 25-05-2008 3:06pm

E92 wrote: »

It was always by far the most popular fuel type until about 4-5 years ago, when diesels started becoming really popular, but in Europe only. Even in the late 90s(and we had the very first common rail diesels then) diesel didn't even account for a quarter of sales. Only in the last few years has diesel started selling in the same numbers as petrol, and that's in Europe only! Everywhere else petrol still is the dominant form of transport.

.

All most likely because Petrol is as cheap as chips in the Other countries like America

E92 · 25-05-2008 3:08pm

peasant wrote: »

Whatever about cars, up to now there is no credible alternative to diesel in heavy machinery like trucks, buses, vans, construction equipment.

Light vans(i.e. car dervied ones) used to be available with petrol engines, and even full size vans are available with petrol engines to this day in the US. So there is no reason why car derived vans at the very least couldn't go back to having petrol available at least as an option(though I accept that that won't hapen any time soon).

there is a perfectly credible alternative to diesel in cars. It's called petrol.

It's not like the arse would fall out of the car industry if we all started driving petrols again. If anything most car makers despite all their bluster would love us to do so. Diesel is very expensive compared to even turbocharged direct injection petrol engines, perhaps the most expensive type of petrol engine there is. That's why they market diesels so much. They need their return on their very expensive investment.

VAG spends half it's R&D budget on diesels, even though they only sell diesels in Europe, and they sell a handful in other countries too.

And even with all that money spent we find that they could develop their TFSI petrol engines, that have been winning awards left, right and centre. In face if it wasn't for BMW they would have won a fair chunk of this year's international engine of the year awards, and all of them were for their TFSI engines bar one.

E92 · 25-05-2008 3:15pm

Karsini wrote: »

One thing which I haven't seen touched upon in this thread is the longevity of diesel engines. It's quite possible to get over 150,000 miles out of a diesel engine whereas a petrol would be on its last legs assuming it even gets that far.

But then again, who keeps a car longer than a couple of years in this day and age...

Not any more. Modern diesels can go very wrong as early as 60k miles and cost a fortune to repair due to the complexity of common rail technology.

A well maintained petrol from a company with a reputation for reliability should have little difficulty in doing 250k miles.

Speaking from a personal experience, we had a Carina E that was still going strong with over 130k on the clock. It sounded as good as it did when we bought it new. I've gone in Carina E taxis with 290k on the clock. They were all petrol too.

peasant · 25-05-2008 3:17pm

E92 wrote: »

Light vans(i.e. car dervied ones) used to be available with petrol engines, and even full size vans are available with petrol engines to this day in the US. So there is no reason why car derived vans at the very least couldn't go back to having petrol available at least as an option(though I accept that that won't hapen any time soon).

Car derived vans weren't particularly what I was thinking about.:D

Take anything over 3 ton gross weight and slap a petrol engine into that and fuel consumption will hit the roof. Diesel is just that much more economical when it comes to doing real work

E92 · 25-05-2008 3:26pm

Here is something interesting about what we may be driving in the future. Apparently a new way of producing biofuel has been discovered. It involves using algae that consume CO2 or something like that.

It would be nice if we could find a way of using bio ethanol that a) really will cut CO2 by 80%, as the manufacturers claim using bio-ethanol can, and b) won't leave under developed countries in an even more precarious position than they already are.

One of the big problems of bio ethanol at the moment is the fear that it will leave a lot of the world's poorest without food and it will raise the price of crops up by a huge amount, and if we could solve these problems then we would have a simple, painless solution to the current problems. It would also get car makers out of a lot of the pressure they are currently under to reduce emissions too, which means that we can have bigger engines with more cylinders and we won't have to fear about environmental damage either for good measure:D!

JHMEG · 25-05-2008 3:39pm

E92, you should read the wikipedia article mentioned in page you linked to.

The biofuel is made using CO2 from burning fossil fuels and algae. The company behind it is almost bankrupt.

E92 · 25-05-2008 3:40pm

peasant wrote: »

Diesel is just that much more economical when it comes to doing real work

true. It also has that *all important* torque too. Petrols have enough torque for everyday use in cars though, and the lack of torque will soon become less of a problem as one of the trends of future cars will be that they will be getting lighter again(and of course forced induction petrols have a lot more torque than a naturally aspirated petrol can ever dream of having). Torque is only really necessary in heavy vehicles, for light vehicles what you need is power:D!

E92 · 25-05-2008 3:44pm

JHMEG wrote: »

E92, you should read the wikipedia article mentioned in page you linked to.

The biofuel is made using CO2 from burning fossil fuels and algae. The company behind it is almost bankrupt.

Hence the word may in the said post;)!

Unfortunately there are too many problems with biofuel at the moment, but they could be the solution to our problems(for now though they certainly are NOT for reasons allued to by me a few posts ago) if the problems can be over come(and hopefully they will).

Phaetonman · 25-05-2008 4:27pm

Torque is only really necessary in heavy vehicles, for light vehicles what you need is power!

No, you need torque and fuel efficiency, thats what matters in the real world.

Cyrus · 25-05-2008 5:13pm

maybe matters to you?

i dont care for efficency and would take bhp over torque all day

vectra · 25-05-2008 5:34pm

Cyrus wrote: »

maybe matters to you?

i dont care for efficency and would take bhp over torque all day

Isnt it the torque of the SEAT Leon Diesels that can outrun the BIG Petrol cars on the BTCC season ??

DublinWriter · 25-05-2008 6:26pm

Phaetonman wrote: »

No, you need torque and fuel efficiency, thats what matters in the real world.

I was thinking starting this exact same thread myself given the fact that I'm finding myself driving about 50 miles a day now.

My BMW 320D gives me about 45 mpg, has an engine rated at 150 hp and goes like sh*te off a shovel...and that's a five year old engine. The new 1.9 BMW 3-series diesels are even more efficient and powerful.

JHMEG · 25-05-2008 6:37pm

vectra wrote: »

Isnt it the torque of the SEAT Leon Diesels that can outrun the BIG Petrol cars on the BTCC season ??

It's be the power that's winning. Torque pulls trailers, power wins races.

Think of it this way: put your foot down with a really heavy trailer behind you, and everything starts to move... that's torque. Put your foot down (no trailer), revs up to 7,000, off the clutch, spin the wheels, hit 60 in 7 sec dead... that's power.

Any anyway, how many races have they actually won?

Sandwich · 25-05-2008 6:58pm

E92 wrote: »

Bio ethanol(which can run in petrol engines surprise surprise) could be the solution to all our problems. However there are too many iussues surrounding it at the moment.

That issue with bioethanol (yes its carbon neutral allright) being that we would need to cover the entire surface of the globe 6 times over in bioethanol crop to produce enough to keep our cars going.
Or something like that.

vectra · 25-05-2008 7:01pm

JHMEG wrote: »

It's be the power that's winning. Torque pulls trailers, power wins races.

Think of it this way: put your foot down with a really heavy trailer behind you, and everything starts to move... that's torque. Put your foot down (no trailer), revs up to 7,000, off the clutch, spin the wheels, hit 60 in 7 sec dead... that's power.

Any anyway, how many races have they actually won?

Dont worry,
I understand fully about Torque and Power.
Give me torque any day,, What sort of twat wants to rev their engines up to 7000 revs to show everyone how brilliant his car is at burning its tyres off? :rolleyes:

How many have SEAT won ?
Cant be doing too bad seeing as one SEAT is running second and the other one 6th
Beating the socks off your " FANTASTIC" Petrol bmw'S AS YOU MAKE THEM OUT TO BE

01/ F. Giovanardi/ >>>> Vauxhall >> Petrol
114/
02/ Jason Plato/ >>> SEAT >> DIESEL

96/
03/ Tom Onslow-Cole/ >>> Vauxhall >> Petrol
93/
04/ Matt Neal/ >>> Vauxhall>> Petrol
90/
05/ Mat Jackson/>>> BMW >>Petrol:rolleyes:
83/
06/ Darren Turner/ >>> SEAT >>DIESEL

75/
07/ Gordon Shedden/ >>> Honda Civic >> Petrol
67/
08/ Colin Turkington/>>> BMW >>Petrol :rolleyes:
63/
09/ Adam Jones/>>> SEAT >> Petrol
49/
10/ Tom Chilton/>> Honda Civic > Petrol
41/

E92 · 25-05-2008 7:12pm

We're really clutching at straws now saying that the Seat Leon did whatever it did in the BTCC because of diesel torque.

What about the chassis? Or the weight of the car? Or the drivers?

Do none of those things matter at all?

Diesels are indeed fast at low revs compared to petrols, but only because petrols don't have a lot of torque never mind power at low revs.

Has any diesel fanboy here actually put their foot down in a petrol and let them pull all the way to the redline? You'd never know, you might actually find that petrols also go "like sh!te off a stick" too when you drive a petrol in their optimum power band, which evidently the diesel fanboys have never done. People are saying that diesels are faster than petrols, only because they think that because a diesel can pull at only 2000 rpm then a petrol should be able to do the same thing. Have the diesel fanboys driven their beloved engines at high revs?(oh wait diesels don't do high revs, they're poor at only 3,500 rpm, what a silly question to ask, I "forgot":rolleyes: that petrols are only warming up at that stage and only really start getting going at 4,000 rpm and above)

Have the diesel fanboys who wrongly think petrol is slower ever actually bothered to drop a few gears when overtaking in a "slow" petrol? I seriously doubt it.

There is far more to an engine than how frugal it is. But all that said if you drive a petrol engine gently they do actually manage to be frugal. Yes you have to work the gearbox a lot more in a petrol, but if that is too labour intensive for you then you really should have an automatic gearbox and not a manual. But fear not the latest direct injection turbo petrols have loads of torque at lovely low revs (e.g. peak torque at only 1500 rpm for VAG's 1.4 TSI) the diesel fanboys are addicted to, so this "disadvantage" of petrol engines is starting to go thanks to VAG and BMW, and direct injection petrol engines are particularly efficient under low engine loads.

As for torque well I've dealt with that already. What you need from an engine is still power:D!

E92 · 25-05-2008 7:15pm

vectra wrote: »

Dont worry,
I understand fully about Torque and Power.
Give me torque any day,, What sort of twat wants to rev their engines up to 7000 revs to show everyone how brilliant his car is at burning its tyres off?

Hold on here.You've been boasting about diesel torque and how it makes diesels "so much faster". And then when JHMEG shows you what a real engine can do(btw you can get diesels to do lots of wheel spin thanks to their torque at low revs too) for performance you are now a "twat".

A diesel coming second and sixth(which means that a petrol still won) is hardly the best commercial for their "performance" either. All it means is that they can match a petrol, which has been the point I've been trying to make the whole time. That they are not faster, despite the delusions of diesel fanboys.

And before someone gives me the spiel about the Audi R10 TDI(because that is inevitable) Audi got all the rules changed to suit themselves before they decided that they were going to do a diesel LeMans car.

Phaetonman · 25-05-2008 7:22pm

Diesels are nicer to drive as well for overtaking. I constantly overtake in 6th gear from 50-70 without any hassle.

The only situation petrol trumps diesel is in straight out racing madness (doing about 4mpg when you gun it), or when idling on a cold
day.

E92, stop beating on about going past 3500 rpm. Its just a waste of fuel and you won't get anywhere faster unless you are on a track.

vectra · 25-05-2008 7:23pm

E92 wrote: »

We're really clutching at straws now saying that the Seat Leon did whatever it did in the BTCC because of diesel torque.

What about the chassis? Or the weight of the car? Or the drivers?

Do none of those things matter at all?

Diesels are indeed fast at low revs compared to petrols, but only because petrols don't have a lot of torque never mind power at low revs.

Has any diesel fanboy here actually put their foot down in a petrol and let them pull all the way to the redline? You'd never know, you might actually find that petrols also go "like sh!te off a stick" too when you drive a petrol in their optimum power band, which evidently the diesel fanboys have never done.

The Leon is suffering BIG TIME because of this weight you point at.
That is exactly what is holding them from doing better as it literally eats the front tyres off.

As for Diesel fanboys.
From a prior post I seem to remember that you are in your early 20's ? ( Correct me if i am wrong )
I will be 50 this year and still have not found a car to frighten me after owning in excess of 35 cars/Bikes to date.:D

I haver had from Minis to BMW's
4 cylinder to 6 cylinder
8 valve to sixteen valve.

Redlined every single one of them many times and you know what?

I still prefer my diesel.
In fact i love it so much after only owning it 4 months I am already looking at getting my next one.
Even with this one only being 3 cylinder and Power: 55 kW , 80 HP EEC @ 4,000 rpm; , 195 Nm @ 2,200 rpm

It still clocks up the KPH mind you :cool:

While still being economical

JHMEG · 25-05-2008 7:38pm

vectra wrote: »

I understand fully about Torque and Power.
What sort of twat wants to rev their engines up to 7000 revs

You said your understood power?

No offence but your preference for diesel might be more to do with your age.

E92 · 25-05-2008 7:50pm

Phaetonman wrote: »

E92, stop beating on about going past 3500 rpm. Its just a waste of fuel and you won't get anywhere faster unless you are on a track.

vectra wrote: »

As for Diesel fanboys.
..
I haver had from Minis to BMW's
4 cylinder to 6 cylinder
8 valve to sixteen valve.

Redlined every single one of them many times and you know what?

I still prefer my diesel.
In fact i love it so much after only owning it 4 months I am already looking at getting my next one.
Even with this one only being 3 cylinder and Power: 55 kW , 80 HP EEC @ 4,000 rpm; , 195 Nm @ 2,200 rpm

Lads, if ye're as bothered about working the gearbox as ye evidently are since ye keep banging on about how "you don't need to drop a gear to overtake", why are ye driving a manual in the first place? If gear changes are that labour intensive then it's time to get an Automatic.

Another myth is that at high revs you waste lots of fuel. You use a bit more fuel, as an instantaneous fuel consumption meter will tell you, but you DO get places faster in a petrol(unlike a diesel), but if you overtake in 5th in a petrol then the fuel consumption goes WAY down, while dropping down to fourth means it responds so much better AND is more frugal too, since you don't need to put the foot down as much. And all of that is in spite of the fact that you're at higher revs.

Petrol engines thrive on high revs for performance. I like that, and I actually enjoy the way you have to work them hard. They have a joie de vivre that diesels just don't. They're still quieter, especially at cold, they're still smoother, they are nicer to drive in town because they don't deliver all their torque in one big lump at low revs and they still sound much better than diesels can dream of sounding.

And the reason petrols are faster on a track is simple: they're faster than diesels, end of story.

Petrol is also miles cleaner than diesel, it's far less of a public healthy risk than diesel is, it won't be causing cancer like diesel does(up to 80,000 people are killed from diesel fumes in Europe according to the WHO) and the impact on local air quality from petrols is minuscule compared to paraffin stoves, hence why in Greece diesel is banned from all cities, but petrol isn't.

Look, I'm glad you all like diesels(some interesting cars there vectra), and as I've driven a few modern ones myself(some of the better ones too apparently like a 520d, which I'm pleased to report will be an addition to the family in July:D and an Avensis D-4D) I know that they are good engines, but they're just not as good as petrol IMO, and with the advances in petrol technology that we can look forward to in the future, they never will be as good either IMHO:)!

maidhc · 25-05-2008 8:09pm

E92 wrote: »

Lads, if ye're as bothered about working the gearbox as ye evidently are since ye keep banging on about how "you don't need to drop a gear to overtake", why are ye driving a manual in the first place? If gear changes are that labour intensive then it's time to get an Automatic.

meh. My 2.0 Capri thrashes my focus TDCI from 0-60. The focus can still do it in about 10 seconds. I cannot make my capri go up hills like the focus does, or overtake to 80mph with the same urgency.

I adore both cars. But as an all rounder bread and butter a->b car the Diesel wins, and I mean that just in terms of the engine power delivery... Obviously a modern hatchback is easier to live with than a 35yo coupé!

vectra · 25-05-2008 8:15pm

E92 wrote: »

Another myth is that at high revs you waste lots of fuel. You use a bit more fuel, !

Now as far as i am concerned you are talkin through where the sun dont shine.
That is the biggest load of rubbish i have ever heard.

Are you telling us that if my car and you car left Cork together and drove to Dublin. Lets say @ 80mph and turn around and back that you would
A) get there a lot faster than I would because you drive a bigger car running on petrol and

use as little fuel as I would ?

I think not.:o

Trust me when i say I never spared any engine i ever had. And to this day I feel exactly the same.

@jhmeg

Bought a diesel as I simply got fed up of pumping petrol into other cars.

Absolutely nothing to do with Age.
Trust me.
We have way too many boy racers where i live and I can honestly say that 1/3 of them would not go against me in a heads on with the same cars.
The know me from old.
I was the local Terror one time myself.
It is not the age that calmed it, It was the missus nagging.

Anyway
Back to topic

Are Diesels still worth buying ?
YES

Cyrus · 25-05-2008 8:39pm

Phaetonman wrote: »

Diesels are nicer to drive as well for overtaking. I constantly overtake in 6th gear from 50-70 without any hassle.

so do i, whats your point?

JHMEG · 25-05-2008 8:48pm

Cyrus wrote: »

so do i, whats your point?

Buy a diesel instead of an automatic?

E92 · 25-05-2008 9:26pm

vectra wrote: »

Now as far as i am concerned you are talkin through where the sun dont shine.
That is the biggest load of rubbish i have ever heard.

What I meant is that flooring a petrol at say 2,000 rpm is far worse than flooring it at say 3,000 rpm. It will accelerate much better at 3,000 rpm, therefore you can increase your speed much faster and therefore the time you spend working the engine hard is massively reduced therefore you're saving on the fuel(as well as the engine). I don't mean that you should drive everywhere at 100 in 3rd gear, what I mean is that if you want to overtake at 100 then you would be far better served by going into 4th or better still 3rd for the brief period while you're overtaking and have your foot down and then once you're finished overtaking go back into 5th again. Or if you're going up a hill and are losing speed then instead of putting the boot down that you should go down to 4th and it will be better able to keep the speed and you don't need to have your foot anywhere near as far down on the loud pedal.

vectra wrote: »

Are you telling us that if my car and you car left Cork together and drove to Dublin. Lets say @ 80mph and turn around and back that you would
A) get there a lot faster than I would because you drive a bigger car running on petrol and

use as little fuel as I would ?

Of course I wouldn't get there faster. We are have speed limits ffs! If we were in Germany and had no speed limits I'd get there much faster than you though whether I'm in my Volvo or my E34 if the traffic permitted high speeds. The Volvo does 200 km/h and hits 100 km/h in 10.4 seconds, the BMW hits 100 in 9.6 seconds and can do 211 km/h. Your car does 0-100 in 13.2 seconds and can only do 177 km/h.

As for economy, well your car does 61.4 mpg on average officially, and 68.9mpg in out of town driving, while my Volvo does 49.6 mpg in out of town driving, 40.9 mpg on average and the BMW is so old they didn't do the tests the way they do them now, but you can take it from me that it is nowhere near as frugal as the Volvo.

What was the point of asking how economical it would be when you know that I have a big 1.8 4 cylinder petrol that's 8 years old that weighs 1386 kg according to the NCT people and an even bigger and heavier 15 year old 2.0 6 pot saloon versus a brand new small 1.4 3 pot diesel that officially weighs 1144kg according to Seat?

The only claim about petrol economy I have made is that with comparable petrol versus diesel models(something you've completely ignored as is evident by asking your question) is that the latest direct injection petrols are getting closer to diesel economy than they have been for quite some time.

vectra · 25-05-2008 11:16pm

E92 wrote: »

What I meant is that flooring a petrol at say 2,000 rpm is far worse than flooring it at say 3,000 rpm. It will accelerate much better at 3,000 rpm, therefore you can increase your speed much faster and therefore the time you spend working the engine hard is massively reduced therefore you're saving on the fuel(as well as the engine). I don't mean that you should drive everywhere at 100 in 3rd gear, what I mean is that if you want to overtake at 100 then you would be far better served by going into 4th or better still 3rd for the brief period while you're overtaking and have your foot down and then once you're finished overtaking go back into 5th again. Or if you're going up a hill and are losing speed then instead of putting the boot down that you should go down to 4th and it will be better able to keep the speed and you don't need to have your foot anywhere near as far down on the loud pedal.

Of course I wouldn't get there faster. We are have speed limits ffs! If we were in Germany and had no speed limits I'd get there much faster than you though whether I'm in my Volvo or my E34 if the traffic permitted high speeds. The Volvo does 200 km/h and hits 100 km/h in 10.4 seconds, the BMW hits 100 in 9.6 seconds and can do 211 km/h. Your car does 0-100 in 13.2 seconds and can only do 177 km/h.

As for economy, well your car does 61.4 mpg on average officially, and 68.9mpg in out of town driving, while my Volvo does 49.6 mpg in out of town driving, 40.9 mpg on average and the BMW is so old they didn't do the tests the way they do them now, but you can take it from me that it is nowhere near as frugal as the Volvo.

What was the point of asking how economical it would be when you know that I have a big 1.8 4 cylinder petrol that's 8 years old that weighs 1386 kg according to the NCT people and an even bigger and heavier 15 year old 2.0 6 pot saloon versus a brand new small 1.4 3 pot diesel that officially weighs 1144kg according to Seat?

The only claim about petrol economy I have made is that with comparable petrol versus diesel models(something you've completely ignored as is evident by asking your question) is that the latest direct injection petrols are getting closer to diesel economy than they have been for quite some time.

You got me wrong
The original question of the OP was
"Are diesels still worth buying"

I say yes because of economy AND
As you said we dont live in Germany with no speed limits
So it is really pointless in having cars with faster engines as you cannot use them.

By the way,
I wouldnt consider a 1.8 4 pot big.
Remember, My last car was a 02 Mondeo Zetec 1.8.. And i dont care what figures Ford or Volvo or SEAT or any manufacturere claim.. Those things Love petrol when you floor it.

I do most of my driving in town.
I dont do much mileage, Probably 100 Miles a week or so.
Anyhow, On a normal week i would burn €25 Petrol in the Mondeo.
As for the SEAT.! Same miles.. only.. Less than €10 per week.

OH
BTW,
On the Fermoy to Cork Bypass. recently..
I did a lot closer to your Volvo's Claimed top speed than what SEAT claim, And I also have yet to see anywhere close to 61.4 or 68.9..
Like I said.
They are only figures.

The Truth is in the savings :cool:

Now you claim about me being silly about comparing my light car with your Volvo or BMW.
How about make a comparision with your two to my next car. ( which could hopefully all going well be within the next month or so)
Skoda Octavia 2.0 TDi VRS.. How would your guzzlers compare to that ?

Like this section from an expert review, Especially the Blue Parts

The 2.0-litre direct injection diesel that powers the Octavia 2.0 TDI PD vRS is an impressive piece of engineering. With 170bhp under the bonnet, this car certainly doesnt hang around. The headline figure with this model isnt the power output but the maximum torque output of 350Nm. The BMW 330i, the Ford Focus ST, the Mercedes SL350, the Porsche Cayman S, and the Subaru Impreza WRX all fail to top this figure.

Torque is simply defined as rotational force and its best to think of it as the engines muscularity. With this sort of torque on tap, you can rest assured that this Skoda isnt going to get sand kicked in its face. Acceleration figures from rest never do a diesel car justice and the 0-60 figure of 8.2 seconds sounds brisk rather than concussive.

A more indicative test is the 30-70mph time through the gears and here the vRS is quick enough to give many of the cars listed above a real scare. With a top speed of 140mph, the Octavia will have no issues about cruising at British motorway speeds and even on the cut and thrust of a two lane derestricted autobahn it has more than enough mumbo to jet up to speed after dispatching a dawdling artic. The great thing about this powerplant is that the torque is almost omnipresent. That maximum figure is available from just 1,750rpm, little more than tickover.

Cyrus · 26-05-2008 7:06am

JHMEG wrote: »

Buy a diesel instead of an automatic?

i drive a manual

Biro · 26-05-2008 8:59am

vectra wrote: »

You got me wrong
The original question of the OP was
"Are diesels still worth buying"

I say yes because of economy AND
As you said we dont live in Germany with no speed limits
So it is really pointless in having cars with faster engines as you cannot use them.

By the way,
I wouldnt consider a 1.8 4 pot big.
Remember, My last car was a 02 Mondeo Zetec 1.8.. And i dont care what figures Ford or Volvo or SEAT or any manufacturere claim.. Those things Love petrol when you floor it.

I do most of my driving in town.
I dont do much mileage, Probably 100 Miles a week or so.
Anyhow, On a normal week i would burn €25 Petrol in the Mondeo.
As for the SEAT.! Same miles.. only.. Less than €10 per week.

OH
BTW,
On the Fermoy to Cork Bypass. recently..
I did a lot closer to your Volvo's Claimed top speed than what SEAT claim, And I also have yet to see anywhere close to 61.4 or 68.9..
Like I said.
They are only figures.

The Truth is in the savings :cool:

Now you claim about me being silly about comparing my light car with your Volvo or BMW.
How about make a comparision with your two to my next car. ( which could hopefully all going well be within the next month or so)
Skoda Octavia 2.0 TDi VRS.. How would your guzzlers compare to that ?

Like this section from an expert review, Especially the Blue Parts

What do you drive that scares away all the local boy racers? They must all be in 1 litre corsa's. I'm sick of TDI drivers thinking they're in the fastest things since sliced bread.
you mention the Octavia TDi VRS - but fail to mention that the Octavia petrol VRS will kick the ass of the Diesel one, despite that they're the same car, same sized engine, both with 1 turbo. The petrol is probably close to 2 seconds quicker to 60mph. The lads are right, all things being equal, petrol is quicker than diesel. I own a diesel by the way!

Cyrus · 26-05-2008 9:07am

yep it seems the VAG 2.0tdi has taken the place of the legendary 1.9 in the speed stakes

(in the owners minds anyway)

E92 · 26-05-2008 9:49am

Biro wrote: »

What do you drive that scares away all the local boy racers? They must all be in 1 litre corsa's. I'm sick of TDI drivers thinking they're in the fastest things since sliced bread.
you mention the Octavia TDi VRS - but fail to mention that the Octavia petrol VRS will kick the ass of the Diesel one, despite that they're the same car, same sized engine, both with 1 turbo. The petrol is probably close to 2 seconds quicker to 60mph. The lads are right, all things being equal, petrol is quicker than diesel. I own a diesel by the way!

+1000.

The petrol would be miles quicker, and it has loads of torque at low revs to boot like a diesel, since it delivers its 207 lb ft at only 1800 rpm. The paraffin stove manages to deliver its 258 lb ft at 1750 rpm. The 2.0 TFSI has 200 bhp over the TDI's 170 bhp, does 0-100 in 7.3 rather than 8.4 seconds, has a top speed of 240 km/h rather than 225 km/h, and averages 36 mpg to the diesel's 49 mpg. Btw the 2.0 TFSI is a design from a few years ago, unlike the 2.0 TDI which has the brand new common rail motor. There is a brand new 2.0 TFSI in the B8 A4(identical engine size but it is in fact a brand new engine) and that has 11 extra bhp over the 2.0 TFSI in the Octavia and 258 lb ft of torque, exactly the same as the 2.0 TDI 170 mentioned here, and in the A4 the same engine can average 42.8 mpg versus the 2.0 TDI 170 in the A4 which averages 53.3 mpg.

What do you drive anyway Biro?

vectra: I wouldn't consider a 1.8 big, relative to your engine it is big though(it's also a lot more powerful);)!

I don't care if the Ocatavia 2.0 TDI has more torque than a 330i, or an SL 350 etc, because any of those cars would eat a 2.0 Ocativa TDI for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

You're after saying that "we dont live in Germany with no speed limits
So it is really pointless in having cars with faster engines as you cannot use them" and then a few lines later you tell me that "I did a lot closer to your Volvo's Claimed top speed than what SEAT claim", so which is it?

Either performance is good, or it's not and if it is then petrol is better.

I don't do a lot of driving, therefore economy is not a priority for me. I'm not going to buy one car over another because of frugality. There is more to an engine than how many mpg it can do. I will however say this: your diesel Seat is so much more economical than a Mondeo because a) it has 3 cylinders rather than 4, b) it is a suopermini rather than a large family saloon, c) it weighs nearly 300 kg less, and d) it's a 1.4. I seriously doubt that a diesel Mondeo/Ocatvia etc would be able to halve the fuel bills, and I would also be confident that a petrol Cordoba wouldn't be a whole pile dearer to run either.

Biro · 26-05-2008 10:32am

E92 wrote: »

+1000.

What do you drive anyway Biro?

6 diesel, 136bhp. It's not quick by any stretch of the imagination, but it'd eat the 1.9 100 and 105bhp VAG cars off the road. It's quicker than the 130 TDi's too. In VAG terms, it's closest rival would be the 2 litre TDi, 140bhp. Not a massive difference between mine and one of those. So I don't heed any VAG TDi driver boasting about their massive performance!
Diesels are effortless driving for sure, but I prefer petrol. When I'm older and have given up dropping cogs, I'll be happy to settle for diesel!!
I used have a Celica 140bhp, and it'd easily walk away from the Mazda.

Phaetonman · 26-05-2008 10:35am

Biro wrote: »

6 diesel, 136bhp. It's not quick by any stretch of the imagination, but it'd eat the 1.9 100 and 105bhp VAG cars off the road. It's quicker than the 130 TDi's too. In VAG terms, it's closest rival would be the 2 litre TDi, 140bhp. Not a massive difference between mine and one of those. So I don't heed any VAG TDi driver boasting about their massive performance!
Diesels are effortless driving for sure, but I prefer petrol. When I'm older and have given up dropping cogs, I'll be happy to settle for diesel!!
I used have a Celica 140bhp, and it'd easily walk away from the Mazda.

Now I know you don't have a clue.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=455
(Mazda6)
2.0d TS (136ps) 4d 10.1 s
VW Passat
1.9 S TDI (130ps) 4d 9.6 s 129 mph 128 bhp

And you're celica isn't much quicker to 60 (1.8 VVTi 3d 8.7 s 127 mph 140 bhp) but no doubt the Tdi would match it from the usual 30-70, 40-60 etc. like all torquey diesels.

ps. the Celica ways 400KG less and has 12 extra BHP. DIESEL POWER!!

Biro · 26-05-2008 10:42am

Phaetonman wrote: »

Now I know you don't have a clue.

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Summary.aspx?model=455
(Mazda6)
2.0d TS (136ps) 4d 10.1 s
VW Passat
1.9 S TDI (130ps) 4d 9.6 s 129 mph 128 bhp

And you're celica isn't much quicker to 60 (1.8 VVTi 3d 8.7 s 127 mph 140 bhp) but no doubt the Tdi would match it from the usual 30-70, 40-60 etc. like all torquey diesels.

1.9 S TDI (130ps) 4d 9.6 s

Figures figures figures. Bring me a Passat 130 and I'll demonstrate. Bring me my old Celica and I'll gladly hand you your arse.
Don't have a clue indeed, you pleb. The 130bhp Passat WILL NOT do 60mph in 9.6 seconds. THe Golf 130 won't even do that!

Phaetonman · 26-05-2008 10:43am

Biro wrote: »

Figures figures figures. Bring me a Passat 130 and I'll demonstrate. Bring me my old Celica and I'll gladly hand you your arse.
Don't have a clue indeed, you pleb. The 130bhp Passat WILL NOT do 60mph in 9.6 seconds. THe Golf 130 won't even do that!

If you can't argue the figures don't resort to name calling. You've been served , end of.

Biro · 26-05-2008 10:45am

Phaetonman wrote: »

If you can't argue the figures don't resort to name calling. You've been served , end of.

I can argue, cause they're false. The 130 Golf according to VW can do 0-60 in 11.3 seconds. You're telling me a Passat can outrun a lighter car with the same engine? You're full of crap.

Are Diesels Worth It Anymore

Comments