This car already has it's 'de-tractors' () but what a vehicle this is going to be!
V12. 5.9 litres. Twin-turbos. 48 valves. 4OHC. 493 bhp at 4000 rpm. 738 lbs-ft at 1750 rpm. (!). Limited top speed 186 mph. De-restricted top speed 206 mph. 20-25 mpg average fuel consumption. 100 mph cruising available at a mere 2200 rpm.
Add that little lot above, to the fact that it is going into a 4WD, mid-engined supercar, of outstanding ability and quality and you have the first diesel supercar.
Originally posted by Cal El: What's the advantage of a V12 twin turbo diesel?
I thought diesel engines were meant to be about economy?
Why not just do it in petrol?
More than twice the tank range at autobahn speeds. All at low rpm not shehgging the engine. Most "supercars" travel about 3000 miles a year. You can use this one and it wont need to be rebuilt every 50K.
i have no problem with diesel supercars...i just have a peroblem with supercars that look like the progeny of an illicit liason between a smart roadster, an audi tt and a porpoise.....i suppose an extravagant looking supercar would have been wholly at odds with audis desging ethos...understated and cool are what they are famous for...i just wish the excellent r8 tugged at the heart as hard as it tugs at the head...
Originally posted by Cal El: What's the advantage of a V12 twin turbo diesel?
I thought diesel engines were meant to be about economy?
Why not just do it in petrol?
More than twice the tank range at autobahn speeds. All at low rpm not shehgging the engine. Most "supercars" travel about 3000 miles a year. You can use this one and it wont need to be rebuilt every 50K.
Thankyou for that.
I see your point.
Maybe Audi might put the supercar world on it's head with this R8.
_________________________ Aka Clark Kent, aka Superman!
1) MPG is not a consideration for any body with £90,000 to spend on a new car with the huge depreciation that comes with it. Economy is also not a consideration for any body buying a twin turbo V12 - so that point is totally out of the question. Now we've dealt with that
2) It's slower than a petrol equivalent. Image the power and torque a highly tuned 5.9L biturbo V12 petrol would put out... Petrol win.
3) No lag on modern petrol turbo engines now with the modern sequential turbo system, but also the benefit of several thousand revs more giving a much more flexible engine.
4) Any thing over 300lb/ft of torque is just pub number talk on a road car. 738lb/ft? the Mercedes V12 Twin Turbo has to be LIMITED to that!
5) Sound. Any body seriously trying to tell me they prefer the clattering characterless thrum of a Diesel engine over the glorious Spitfire bellow of a boosted V12 petrol is absolutely insane.
6) Weight. A Diesel engine by it's very design is still always quite a bit heavier than the petrol counterpart. Straight away by fitting a Diesel engine, Audi are not making the car the best it can be and are deliberately making it a heavier and worse handling car than it could be.
In summary, this Diesel R8 is worse in every single possible way than a petrol counterpart, especially in performance - which I thought was the biggest sole factor in a "Supercar". The only bonus is a marginally better MPG figure, which is a totally irrelevant factor in this sector, because of the huge wealth needed to be able to buy one, take the deprecation and run it! People buying this car don't care if it's returning 20 MPG or 10 MPG. It simply isn't a consideration.
"If you have to ask the price, sir, you cannot afford it..."
Your post, Oli, has some good points, but you are wrong in several areas, too.
Firstly, the amount of hooning on the road which is possible, with the amount of traffic and cameras we have, is about a tenth of what it was 20 years ago AND falling, so what a petrol version of that car might be capable of, power and speed wise, is totally irrelevant. The Audi diesel will reach 60 in 4 seconds and, derestricted, will do over 200 mph, so nobody can possibly want more than that, unless they are a bit soft.
Secondly, running costs do come into it, when you are buying a £90K car. Cars costing that much new are bought, especially when used, by people a long way short of rich. Long service intervals, good mpg and higher resale value than petrol will certainly be useful. It's not just the rich who buy sports cars. People borrow money regularly to fulfill their dreams.
Also, i may agree with you on many things 'cars', but you haven't owned a decent modern, powerful diesel, like i have and are thus, not best placed to judge their strengths. Too many people are stuck in the past with their views of diesel engines. I know someone who is getting a V12 Audi R8 derv, as soon as they come out. He currently owns a Gallardo and has had between 15-20 supercars already. I understand him fully, when he says he fancies one for the quality of the car, for the brilliant design of the car and for the different experience a twin-turbo 48-valve V12 diesel will offer him, over the multitude of petrols that are often very similar. I would like to try one myself and may well get the chance when he gets it, with a bit of luck. I remember wiping the smiles from many petrol-owners' faces with my 535d.
By the way, i currently have a 4.2 litre V8 supercharged Jaguar petrol, which i love and an 800cc petrol coupe, which revs to 9000 rpm and has won me over with it's charm. (Honda S800).
Originally posted by b308: I see that the sand is still very deep in Knocks-land!
Blair, as you know, i am a true car enthusiast, as in, i will always support those cars, (against anyone, friend or foe,) that i have reason to admire. I have no prejudice whatsoever, against any make of car, or any type of fuel being used.
Palmira, for example, regularly states that Lancer Evolutions, Imprezzas and Skylines are only driven by the brain-dead and the lower classes, on council estates, who are barely more than criminals. That is clearly utter codswallop and so is saying that every diesel car is rubbish.
Interestingly enough I've just been reading about the change over from front engined racing cars to rear engined ones in the late 50s - there were people around then who said things like "they won't work", and "they are not "proper" cars" and similar .... we still have one particular poster who says that a car is only a proper one if its rwd!
Cars can be powered by anything and drive any wheel(s), and that applies just as much to sports cars as to ordinary models.
Nox, you can put out any daft arguments you want, but at the end of the day you are only expressing your opinion, your "conclusions" are simply that, a bias opinion of a car coloured by your hatred of diesel....
People like you have always existed and its lucky that they never had control over car development otherwise we would still have steam power, which if you cast your mind back was the original power for road vehicles.......
Originally posted by barky: loved the sound of a big diesel ever since I was a wee kid
Aye, i still love the sound of a wide-open Class 37, (which i still get to drive on the preserved lines!) 67s do the West Highland Line, now and, whilst way better locomotives and easier to drive and more powerful, just haven't got the 37 experience!
A visit to the autobahn will tell you the fastest cars are V6 TD's. We used to have a fancy corporate pool car, A8 4.2q, which cost about £50k then. My boss drove me down to stuttgart in about 2 hours at 4am from Essen. We had to stop for petrol four times there and back, averaging about 200kmh. (was about 5 hours coming back) That was also the day i stopped liking really fast cars / got brown trousers. Range, fuel costs, depreciation, low revving the engine are all part of the purchase decision for these cars.
) but what a vehicle this is going to be!
