I would like to see a Diesel produce 202.5 bhp a litre!
They don't need to.. oodles of torque..
I must admit, I don't fancy performance diesels myself, the mpg figures for BMWs top diesels are shocking. But diesels are capable of performance rivaling petrols. They'll never replace petrols in the supercar segment, power to weight is inferior, but they will improve and replace the majority of high power petrol motors.
quote:
or even a diesel that makes more than 177.5 lbft a litre.
I give you! *drumroll* The BMW 535d M Sport, 3 litre v6 0-62 of 6.5 seconds 35mpg 560 Max Torque, exactly 186.666 lb ft a litre Oh and 272BHP to boot. The next petrol up the range is a 4000cc model, 0-62 6.2 seconds, 390lbft or torque, 306bhp oh and 25mpg if you're lucky.
you made a mistake the 535d m sport has 560nm torque but we are talking lbft which is 413 lbft which is drum roll....... a pathetic 137.6 lbft a litre comapred to the petrol evo 177.5 drum roll over.
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
Now, the debate about diesel has been raging on here for about a week and it seems us contributors fall into two distinct camps:
1. Those who believe diesel is a wonderful fuel powering cars that are torquier, faster, more eficient and cleaner than their petrol-powered equivalents. So why shouldn't sporty cars have diesel powerplants.
2. Those who believe diesel is a dreadful fuel that should be consigned to commercial vehicles and plant equipment.
....so how about this....It's a JCB, so camp #2 will be happy....but it's also got 1500 bhp and is going for a land speed record, which should please the dieselists.
Could this be the compromise that brings us all together in peaceful co-existence? ....
_________________________ "Forward", he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died. And the General sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.
JCB, will attempt the land speed record for diesel-powered cars this summer with a purpose-designed streamlined car powered by a JCB444 engine developing 150bhp per litre.
thats quite a humouros article. but ther is more than 2 camps to the argument. i am in the camp of petrol engines are more powerful and have more torque than diesel engines, when setup to be about performance. its going to be annoying when le mans 24 hour race is on as audi will probably win with their diesel race car. but it would do well not from being diesel but because it have the massive backing of a huge company, technical support, a winning chassis/suspension and aerodynamics. if audi hada B team with same car but a petrol race engine inside the petrol would win. audi are only doing this because they want to sell more diesel cars and make the brand image better.
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
Alas Beach we both made the same stupid mistake. You see the Evo has 177.5 NM torque a litre. If we're working lb ft, the evo only has 130.815 lb ft per litre. Which meaaaans.... *drum roll* The BMW has more torque for each litre. Oh and guess what... It also gets considerably more than the evos 25mpg and has a higher top speed. Oh and it doesn't require daft "super unleaded" fuel. Bog standard diesel will do the beemer just fine.
<pantherd90>
Posted
^ Which means the BMW is much much more economical, refined and generally better than the Evo...
Super Unleaded average price is 97.1p which is only slightly less than the 98p for Diesel.
but ther is more than 2 camps to the argument. i am in the camp of petrol engines are more powerful and have more torque than diesel engines, when setup to be about performance. its going to be annoying when le mans 24 hour race is on as audi will probably win with their diesel race car. but it would do well not from being diesel but because it have the massive backing of a huge company, technical support, a winning chassis/suspension and aerodynamics. if audi hada B team with same car but a petrol race engine inside the petrol would win. audi are only doing this because they want to sell more diesel cars and make the brand image better.
.... Man, cheer up! That's depressing reading .... enough to make me want to join the diesel sympathisers.
COME ON THE CLATTERBOX R10!! .... quid says they manage to squeeze a beard on the front!
_________________________ "Forward", he cried, from the rear, and the front rank died. And the General sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.
In my younger days my civil service salary and 80miles daily commute led to an inevitable conclusions - a small, cheap diesel! Quite fancied a small Pug, but could only afford the (then naturally aspirated) 1.4 diesel. Now that car was SLOW! From memory around 50bhp, 0-60 in over 20 seconds. No amount of "it's quite torquey though" type excuses could get away from the fact that the engine was rubbish! Ended up with a 1.8 diesel Fiesta instead, no sportster but far more usable everyday than the 106.
On the petrol vs diesel debate - why the need to be one or the other? Why not appreciate the virtues of both for what they do? If I had the wedge I'd probably buy one of BMWs bigger diesel engined models (probably 330d), I think it offers a pretty good compromise and is a lot more economical that equivalently swift petrols (whilst not especially economical in its own right). But that's because I'm a tight wad who likes to drive fast.
If I was really rich I'd always have a V8 petrol and spend lots of time near tunnels with the roof down/windows open. Now that doesn't mean I prefer petrols to diesels, it just means I appreciate their relative merits and therefore would choose a car based on my own personal requirements.
I changed a Golf TDi for a Clio 1.6 last year. The golf was far superior on the motorway (although not as quick at the very top end ), so when my miles were more motorway based I owned one. Now my mileage is more confined to around town with the odd country run, the Clio is a lot more fun as it's more revvy and proficient at the traffic light dash (but because I'm still a tight wad, the 1.6 avoids the wallet bashing insurance of a Clio 182 which I probably should have bought!).
See, you can appreciate the merits of both without having to have a favourite.
Although in reference to comments about diesel engines not really having equivalent power/performance to a petrol, the fact that this argument can even be had shows the relative improvement of the diesel engine in recent years when compared to the petrol.
In the early 90s the onlty diesel you could have on a little Pug was the 1.4 I mentioned above. Even the 1.1 106s would drive rings around it. By the end of the naughties there are HDis of various shapes and sizes, all of which compare reasonably to their petrol equivalents (in price), 1.4 diesel to 1.1 petrol, 1.6 diesel to 1.4 petrol and so on. That is progress. Doesn't mean the diesels are better than the petrols at everything, just means the diesels got better.
Originally posted by pantherd90: Alas Beach we both made the same stupid mistake. You see the Evo has 177.5 NM torque a litre. If we're working lb ft, the evo only has 130.815 lb ft per litre. Which meaaaans.... *drum roll* The BMW has more torque for each litre. Oh and guess what... It also gets considerably more than the evos 25mpg and has a higher top speed. Oh and it doesn't require daft "super unleaded" fuel. Bog standard diesel will do the beemer just fine.
yuo have made a mistake again lol.
2.0 MR FQ-400 has 481 nm or 355 lbft torque which is 177.7 lbft per litre a lot more than the wheezy 535d m sport bmw which has only 137.6 lbft per litre. so the diesels top of the range performance engine has less torque per litre than a performance petrol engine.
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
Originally posted by Boig: Now, the debate about diesel has been raging on here for about a week and it seems us contributors fall into two distinct camps:
1. Those who believe diesel is a wonderful fuel powering cars that are torquier, faster, more eficient and cleaner than their petrol-powered equivalents. So why shouldn't sporty cars have diesel powerplants.
2. Those who believe diesel is a dreadful fuel that should be consigned to commercial vehicles and plant equipment.
....so how about this....It's a JCB, so camp #2 will be happy....but it's also got 1500 bhp and is going for a land speed record, which should please the dieselists.
Could this be the compromise that brings us all together in peaceful co-existence? ....
Boig, those of us who defend diesels do so because the more verbal anti-diesel brigade on this forum tend to fall into the catagory you mention and ignore all reasoned arguement - you'll find all of us who defend them have at one stage or another said that its horses for courses and sometimes one fuel is better than the other - Pally and Nox are just anti-diesel with no in between.
Why shouldn't a diesel engine power a race car?, what is it that makes the racing scene petrol only? - just to remind everyone that a steam engine once held the land speed record and a diesel car lead the Indy 500 for over half the race back in the 50s - so its nothing new!
well putting aside my hate of diesels as a matter of taste. to comment on whether or not there should be diesel race cars i would say whats the point in having them? the only point i can see is to promote a sponsors/manufacturers backed road car version to increase brand awareness and sales. i cant see a diesel race car doing better than a petrol race car out of only the merits of its fuel type. i'm not against the idea of them competing though, as finaly i could watch on tv the battles of petrol v diesel touring cars or even dare i say it F1 cars. would be great fun. i would be waving my petrol flag, and diesel supports waving their smelly oily hands. (joke)
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
A limited edition of only 100 cars.. Hardly a benchmark for comparing to a fairly standard diesel saloon now is it?
Hugely overtuned Mitsubishis aside, high power diesels can and do beat a lot of the opposition and they will get better, it's early days yet.
As car companies strive to produce more fuel efficient cars they'll put more money into researching and developing diesel units for the common market and the race track.
we'll see. at the moment they have a lot of catching up to do. for me the economy drive will be in low kerb weight plastic/aluminium/carbon etc. fibre cars with small capacity petrol engines with turbos/superchargers. i think others will be following the colt 1.5 turbo/daihatsu 1.3 turbo/ golf 1.4 superturbo type smaller petrol engines. just need to focus on lightweight cars and get people away from "luxury" in-car items...and of course diesel.
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
choose a limited edition diesel to compare with if you like. i was only intersted in performance asepcts only, not quantity or standardness. but the evo engine is a road and not a competiton/racing engine. if you wanted to talk "special petrol engines" from race cars then we would be talking very high bhp and torque figures indeed.
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
But who cares whether its got 100 or 500 ftlb a litre?
Except, perhaps, those paranoid petrolheads!
I've never liked comparing diesel and petrols engines, its like comparing apples and pears - both produce a nice drink, but they taste different and appeal to different people - why can't you petrolheads just accept that everyone is different and we don't all go around doing racing starts from traffic lights or revving the b****s off our engine - there's more to life, you know!
If I wanted a car in which I wanted to take on a track I would probably choose a petrol car of some sort - if I wanted one for day to day running which I knew had power to spare and would suit my style of driving I would get a diesel - if I really wanted to race everyone away from traffic lights I wouldn't get a car at all, I'd get a bike!
Is now a good time to mention Audi won a Le Mans with a DIESEL racecar? It beat the Aston DBR9's. Also, Audi's 4.2D V8 impressed TG, the most petrolhead mag to the point it said you wouldn't need a petrol. They were considering fitting a highly tuned V10 TDI in the Gallardo.
I like diesel, but I'm afraid it would be a Petrol for me.
Originally posted by beach: show me a diesel winning le mans, i havent heard of that...
alms series probably
-------------------------------------------- Two junior particle physicists were dismissed today after using the Large Hadron Collider to smash conkers into each other at near-light speed.
Originally posted by ProfJC: Is now a good time to mention Audi won a Le Mans with a DIESEL racecar? It beat the Aston DBR9's. Also, Audi's 4.2D V8 impressed TG, the most petrolhead mag to the point it said you wouldn't need a petrol. They were considering fitting a highly tuned V10 TDI in the Gallardo.
I like diesel, but I'm afraid it would be a Petrol for me.
Ahh, the R10. The R8 was a V8 3.6L petrol engine, and the R10 is a V12 5.5 L Turbo Diesel engine. Yes, of course the Diesel engine has more power with a high pressure turbo and another 1.9 litres capacity.. I wonder what power a PETROL 5.5 litre turbo v12 would kick out! Considerably more than the Diesel - I can't see any great feat of engineering here!
