[drakkie]

Oi ! Here comes the long answering/clarifying my views.

[quote=jediali;749018]Im willing to let imature posts go by but if you talk technical...don't be woolly about it.....

I dont understand? in changing conditions (ie rapid rev changing and demands) you can take two view points:
1) a petrol will have better response
2) varying revs? you want good torque spread...so get VW FSI or any diesel..both of which have flatter torque curves.
Otherwise im confused

Yea I meant point #1 !

calrify...engine wont give you a better chassis/suspension setup. I assume you mean better cruising engine / more relaxing?

No offcourse it won't change the chassis or suspension. I meant it is more relaxing to drive, less shifting and such. From the diesels I have driven the clutch was also easier to operate. It is also one of the reasons why almost every Dutch driving school uses Diesels. When driving my dad's C5, I had serious trouble getting to learn the different feeling while clutching. Like hitting the throttle while clutching..

not so critically:

I would say the opossite actually, i think diesel development is slowing down.

Compared to petrol engines there are many more new technologies being developed. For example all the advances in EGR technolgies are very interesting, it goes very quick. I read a monthly magazine, written for the proffesional readers (dealerships,suppliers, students and eveybody else involved in the business). Each month they take on of the manufacturers new cars and literally disect it. Very interesting articles and very educative, though a bit too in-depth for some.. Perhaps I am biased a bit by them, but it seems to me that the best and most useful advances are made to diesel engines.

My teacher for engines and engine management also mentioned a few times Diesels have much more progress to make ! I assume he knows his stuff well, as i sometimes have trouble following him in his in-depth analysis/explanations of the engine/components difficult stuff to learn !

Im glad your into the tech. side Drakkie but im worried about guests who come on here and might believe some of your engineering stuff

We should assume they all know how to read with a critical eye. I am not always right, not at all, but which human being is ? Sometimes in my fatigue I do shout some stupid things, which I shouldn't.. But i'm glad I am learning about it and am always willing to learn. I can always appreciate a good explantion of something.. One should learn from his mistakes, shouldn't he ?

Originally Posted by IWantAnAudiRS6

Let me clarify here. A Polo does around 65mpg. Your Alto supposedly does 50mpg. I find this extremely difficult to believe, what with your 160km/h jaunts and your... addled... driving reports. Diesels can usefully extract the maximum economy- having driven an Audi with the 1.9TDi, I was getting 53mpg on the motorway whilst doing 110mph. My little Peugeot, no matter how I drive it, manages AT BEST 38mpg overall.

I do drive quick sometimes and the Alto surprises me and many other with that. This does not mean I always drive way to fast. On the school run i average around 100 km/h on the speedometer on the highway, almost idling in fifth. Even when in a "fast mood" I apply various fuel saving techniques, like braking on the engine or shifting very swiftly to higher gears (70 in fifth, 50 in 4th, 25 in 3rd and so on) if stuck behind someone.. It is one of the things I have learned while doing driving lessons and even the exam guy gave me a compliment about it I do feel sometimes I am one of the few on the road...

Somewhere on the forum I have posted the proof of my claim. I took a photo of the odometer and the ticket of the gas station. If you want i'll do it again !

You also forgot that petrols emit much more CO2 than diesels. How do you mean by elasticity? Unless you have a petrol engine with a rude amount of torque, you're gunna be changing gear a lot more than with a diesel. High torque and a useful rev range allow for you to stick in one gear more often with a diesel.

True, they emit more CO2 but this is mainly caused by the higher amount of fuel used in it. Looking at it strictly the Well-to-Wheel emissions are higher too, because of the extra refining needed.

Diesel seems to be the 'better' fuel at the moment, it's cheaper than petrol here and lasts much longer. A Peugeot 306 DTurbo gets around 550 miles to a tank of diesel, the equivalent 1.6 with a similar amount of bhp and much less torque pulls around 330 miles to a tank. The diesel also has an excellent midrange flexibility for quick overtaking, very useful in the real world, and they cruise nicely. The only realistic penalties I can think of are that it sounds like a tractor and doesn't have the same handling sparkle as the lighter petrol model.

You do forget that the size of the fuel tank is not neccesarily the same. I have heard of examples where the size is different with different petrol engine (80's Ford Escort for example). And a real tractor does sound bloody well if giving it all ! I was lucky enough to be at a classic tractor meeting in Germany this year and I loved it to bits. They did a kind of plow pulling competition in a field with 50 cm deep mud. What a nice sight/feeling. I actually enjoyed it more than the F1's racing through Rotterdam !!! Thankfully opinions vary !

You're looking in the wrong places. Considered something older? And what the hell do you mean by 'they provide a nicer ride'? Try telling that to a Maybach or Rolls-Royce Phantom owner- both petrol, last time I looked. Also, a petrol will deliver handling less likely to understeer- less torque, less weight over the front axles- therefore making it a preferable drive.

See the answer to the above post, I hope this answers it. If driven well a Diesel should create the same amount of understeer. The construction doesnt vary too much from most petrol cars and the engine is usually placed in about the same position. Don't forget that some manufacturers also tweak the suspension a bit, to provide the same handling throughout the model range...