There is a good write-up in the latest issue. They (somewhat grudgingly) acknowledge, that fast dervs have advantages over petrols, as road cars. They point out that on the track and as far as noise goes, the petrols still rule supreme, but explain that the powerbands of the latest dervs are so much better for fast road work, than naturally aspirated petrols. The petrols which do keep up, via large capacity or forced induction, are way behind on economy, which, like it or not, is a real issue for most drivers now, what with fuel at £6 a gallon. Take a read. If THIS magazine has been converted, a few here need to wake up and smell the coffee also.......
lol the diesel delusion continues. its like the religious looking for evidence that god exists. face the science, diesel power can never be "as good as" petrol. all your saying is that and the magazine is saying is that most diesels do more miles to the gallon than petrol. oh my god what news is this from heaven!?
....... There's got to be a hundred reasons why i should listen to diesel owners, but right now, i can't think of any.
I am a strong petrol supporter, there are few things that put a smile on my face as much as my bike screaming at 11,000+rpm on a ride, but I can also see the qualities in diesel.
If you could open your eyes, you'd see that diesel DOES have qualities over petrol (mainly on the road, imo).
You are right, Si. Beach has a very narrow minded view of motoring.
I drive a petrol car with 381 bhp and the accleration of a Bugatti Veyron between 0-110 mph. Previous petrol cars include M5 V10 and M3 CSL and Evo 340. I love petrol cars, in many ways. However. If i can appreciate diesel engines, then they obviously have something decent to offer.
BTW, if you care to read it properly, i said that the magazine confirmed that the best dervs have engines better suited to fast road work than n/a petrols.
The way things are going re fuel prices I think we'll all be doing waht Nox does and only using them at weekends shortly - am I glad I haven't got a long commute!
Hey Bamford, have you been sent by the ghost of Dr Diesel to get us all driving DERV's???
I think the way the price of your beloved fuel is going; diesels are going to go by the wayside soon!
It's getting to the point where it is no longer economically viable to have one unless you are a sales rep or you drive about 222,000 miles a year!!!
____________________________ We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first Bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better....stronger..faster.....cue the cheesy 70's music!!!
Take a look at evo magazine this month. They test the latest Renaultsport Megane 175dci against the Focus ST and the Focus wins on 0-60, top speed and every single in gear increment. The disiesel wins on economy.
Air Medic - Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Service
The bottom line is this. When a magazine, which is totally dedicated to high-performance, highly-tuned hatches, saloons and coupes starts praising fast diesel cars themselves, it's high time those people here stuck firmly in the past woke up to the facts. Something like a 123d will be able to use 95% of it's performance, 95% of the time. Something like a Civic Type R may be faster on paper, in theory, but in the real world will give it's very best quite rarely.
NOTE The Integra Type R is criticised in the latest Performance Tuner for the very reason that it is hard to get the best from. The quickest dervs make better road cars. Take a read, don't take my word for it.
Originally posted by petrol_blue: Take a look at evo magazine this month. They test the latest Renaultsport Megane 175dci against the Focus ST and the Focus wins on 0-60, top speed and every single in gear increment. The disiesel wins on economy.
Two points. 0-60 is meaningless on the road. Cars which are faster to 60, can be slower to 50 or 70.
The Focus ST has a 2.5 litre, turbocharged, 5-cylinder engine. It is one of the more flexible and useful engines around. I like it. Not exciting, but good. It's economy is dreadful, a big factor, at £6 a gallon and rising.
The Renault is not cuttiong edge derv technology either, but still a capable car.
You are comparing chalk and cheese here although you have a valid point. The revvy Type R engines are harder to get the best out of on the road, but what about turbo petrol engines? I don't see how a turbo petrol is any less tractable in the real world than a turbo disiesel as they both have good low down and mid range shove and the petrol has the added ability of revs and a wider powerband. My petrol turbo produces maximum torque between 1900rpm and 3500rpm and the Focus ST between 1600rpm and 4000rpm, making for perfect real world useable performance. I would suggest that all it boils down to again is economy?
Air Medic - Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Service
Turbo petrols are more expensive to run and maintain, yes. Many suffer from turbo lag, also. Something like the 123D, or the 535D i had, did not have lag, or at least it had none above 1,500 rpm. Of course i have a point, PB, i have, after all, owned and driven extensively every kind of car there is, just about! I never favour any type of car or engine, i just draw on the experience of 118 cars and around 1.25 million miles of driving.
Originally posted by petrol_blue: Take a look at evo magazine this month. They test the latest Renaultsport Megane 175dci against the Focus ST and the Focus wins on 0-60, top speed and every single in gear increment. The disiesel wins on economy.
The Focus ST has a 2.5 litre, turbocharged, 5-cylinder engine. It is one of the more flexible and useful engines around. I like it. Not exciting, but good. It's economy is dreadful, a big factor, at £6 a gallon and rising.
The Renault is not cuttiong edge derv technology either, but still a capable car.
0-60 is not meaningless necessarily, if you come to a set of lights and want to give the car next to you a run. It's not illegal and can be fun to do now and again
Top speed is meaningless, and in gear increments are the most relevant for road use which the Focus is better at along with 0-60 also.
If the 5 cyl turbo Focus/Volvo engine is not exciting, I dread to think what the 4 pot disiesel is like!
evo magazine obviously felt there was relevance in testing them together and it is still the very latest disiesel hot hatch, the only reason of buying it over the Focus remains it's economy.
Air Medic - Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Service
Originally posted by petrol_blue: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Bamford: [QUOTE]Originally posted by petrol_blue:
0-60 is not meaningless necessarily, if you come to a set of lights and want to give the car next to you a run. It's not illegal and can be fun to do now and again
I think you'll find that racing on a public road (for that's what it is) is indeed illegal.
PB missed my point. Even at the lights, a better 0-60 time won't stop the other guy getting to 50 first. Or 70 first. It also won't matter, if the 'faster' car, in theory, is much harder to launch than the automatic diesel which will give it's all to anybody, every time. My 535d weighed 1735 kgs and was power-sapping automatic, but, by burying the throttle, the car regularly out-dragged supposedly faster petrols, because their 0-60 times can only be achieved under ideal conditions with a racing driver at the helm. It's all about real world performance, not stats on paper.
The Focus is a fine engine in 2.5 guise, i agree. But, let me quote you page 16 of a *petrol head* magazine this month.
"AFTER DRIVING A FAST MODERN DIESEL, NEVER HAVE THE LIKES OF THE INTEGRA TYPE R, ANY 80s/EARLY 90s 16-VALVERS AND MANY MORE FELT SO GUTLESS UNLESS WOUND UP TO THE RED".
Originally posted by Bamford: The Focus is a fine engine in 2.5 guise, i agree. But, let me quote you page 16 of a *petrol head* magazine this month.
"AFTER DRIVING A FAST MODERN DIESEL, NEVER HAVE THE LIKES OF THE INTEGRA TYPE R, ANY 80s/EARLY 90s 16-VALVERS AND MANY MORE FELT SO GUTLESS UNLESS WOUND UP TO THE RED".
Surprised at that comment? I'm not!
I'm wondering if the writer was thinking of the early 90's Clio 16v ..... I agree entirely.
_________________________ "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.
I was driving a 206 1.4 HDi for a while and when I got back into my Civic VTEC it indeed seemed slow at the bottom end, especially slow 2nd gear junctions. However it came alive past 5k rpm and was much more responsive to throttle inputs. Different cars, different methods of driving.
Air Medic - Mobile Automotive Air Conditioning Service
