Diesel or petrol?

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by wwgkd

I think in this hybrid diesel dabate you're missing a couple key points.

1. Diesels are expensive, and hybrids are expensive, so diesel electric hybrids, while the most effecient, are also the most expensive (in their class.) That's why you don't see more of them right now.

2. Hybrids have the battery problem. Very messy to make and just as bad to dispose of. Those battery packs only last 100,000 miles right now and are almost as hard to dispose of as nuclear waste (ask japan about that, they're pretty mad at the us and canada for shipping our old packs back to them.) People think zero emissions in electric mode and completely forget that it's a whole system, no just whats going on when you drive.

Hybrids doesn't mean batteries as a given fact, remember that flying wheels are a reality right now for industrial plants, and in less than a year they will be adopted on large vehicles, like a bus.
Also, while with the present technology batteries are indeed a double edged sword, many of the are focused in achieving a good electric only range, while much less of that would be required given this mode would be used only in downtowns and the likes.
Finally, diesels aren't more expensive, it's a common thing they managed to convince us. it may have been true in 1998 with the first common rail engines (actually one of the first engines, the 1.9 JTD by Fiat, was available on the 156 for precisely 20.546 € (not much really for a brand new technology), while the base (and old) 1.6 liter petrol engine I think it was for sale at 18.000 €.
Right now the costs of those engines are basically the same of their petrol counterparts, but automakers still pretends to apply an higher price, knowing that we are both used to pay more for a diesel and and interested in the better mileage, thinking we are going to save back the extra money, which is true only if you drive at least say 25.000 km per year or more.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by LeonOfTheDead

Right now the costs of those engines are basically the same of their petrol counterparts, but automakers still pretends to apply an higher price, knowing that we are both used to pay more for a diesel and and interested in the better mileage, thinking we are going to save back the extra money, which is true only if you drive at least say 25.000 km per year or more.

In some cases they even cost the same. I remember when we bought the 118d, it cost exactly the same as the 118i. Don't know if it still does though.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

In some cases they even cost the same. I remember when we bought the 118d, it cost exactly the same as the 118i. Don't know if it still does though.

remember there is a difference between production costs and selling prices....

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by henk4

remember there is a difference between production costs and selling prices....

Maybe the margins are thinner on the diesels, but I'm sure BMWs relies on other margins to get massive benefits. Like making you pay extra for pretty much anything.

They mustn't have won much with our car though...

[LeonOfTheDead]

Considering the profits of premium brands weren't lower recently (meaning the pre-crisis years) and considering they were selling mainly diesel cars, yes, the margin is there, proud and loud.
Surely for a brand new company designing a standard petrol car is easier, less components, more space in the engine bay, smaller gearbox and drivetrain components and so on.
Modern petrol engines are as much complicated as diesels though, especially if we are to consider turbocharged units. The nice thing about diesels is that much of the job is done by suppliers like Bosh, while petrol engine are more in-house developed.
This like of investment from the companies into diesel stuff should indicate that they knew it wasn't going to last much, so giving all the investments to basically one main supplier (which will also benefit from sharing the costs on much more parts sold) was a more sensible idea.
That at first explained the major costs, it was a new technology, and outsourced. Now the evolution of the diesel is relying on minor updates and smaller parts, which also happen to cost less to develop. Hence why the costs are now lower, while petrol engines are receiving much more attention (so costs).
Take Fiat, last time they did a turbocharged engine was the 15 years ago or so, and it was something pretty ordinary even back in the days, albeit 100% effective.
Now they are putting on the market almost only turbocharged engine, they are moving towards eliminating camshafts (not correct, a cam is still present) for the intake valves and many other things. That costs, a lot.

[4wheelsonline]

Originally Posted by lightweight

It all comes down to the way you use the car.

The truth is that from a financial point of view, the Diesel is superior to the Petrol engine because of its accessible power band and the better fuel economy for a given power figure.

Many argue for the emotional qualities of the petrol engine, like the higher revving character and the sound. True, but this realistically applies only to sports cars. If someone buys a Mondeo 3.0 V6, then he is wasting his petrol over a bad chassis.

Conclusion: 80% of the population's driving style is better suited to the Diesel, but for some reason some of them choose petrol engines.

Yes. I definitely agree diesel is more cheaper than petrol products.

[Ferrer]

Alright I was trying to find the post where Damiano said we tend to drive petrol powered cars more aggresively but I can't.

And it's true, having driven the Delta for some weeks now, I tend to rev it higher than the BMW. It's not like this means redlining or going flat out eveywhere. Just more revs than diesel driving.

I think it's because it's more enjoyable, and more rewarding. Altough this shows on the fuel consumption. I doubt I'll go past 500km in this tank. But we'll see.

[pimento]

I'da thunk a petrol car would need more revs to exploit the power band than a diesel car anyway.. but the only diesels I've driven have been utes or small trucks.

[Ferrer]

Originally Posted by pimento

I'da thunk a petrol car would need more revs to exploit the power band than a diesel car anyway.. but the only diesels I've driven have been utes or small trucks.

True. But if you don't need or want to go very fast you can also drive a petrol car without many revs. What I meant is that I find myself revving the Lancia higher than I could given the speed and the driving conditions.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

True. But if you don't need or want to go very fast you can also drive a petrol car without many revs. What I meant is that I find myself revving the Lancia higher than I could given the speed and the driving conditions.

which is what I originally meant.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Ferrer

True. But if you don't need or want to go very fast you can also drive a petrol car without many revs. What I meant is that I find myself revving the Lancia higher than I could given the speed and the driving conditions.

the fun thing is that you can drive a diesel relatively (very) fast without using too many revs....

[f6fhellcat13]

Or a low-powered gasoline car relatively slowly (legally) while still revving it excessively and having fun and a "more involved" driving experience in the process.

I have not driven a diesel car, so I really cannot comment accurately, but the way they're made out, I would imagine the sensation of speed is lacking.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13

I have not driven a diesel car, so I really cannot comment accurately, but the way they're made out, I would imagine the sensation of speed is lacking.

your invited to come over and try for yourself.

[f6fhellcat13]

My only encounter with compression ignition was in a rattly old moving truck, which I think is not a fair way to judge diesel passenger cars.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Originally Posted by f6fhellcat13

Or a low-powered gasoline car relatively slowly (legally) while still revving it excessively and having fun and a "more involved" driving experience in the process.

I have not driven a diesel car, so I really cannot comment accurately, but the way they're made out, I would imagine the sensation of speed is lacking.

I actually think they seem faster.
They are louder, and the way the torque quickly becomes available let you think you're about to fly. Also, having a turbo helps moving the car quickly while with naturally aspirated petrol cars it seems to get more time. It's all relative.

Certain petrol cars used to have the power curve a bit too vertical to get really involved in the driving, as with old turbocharged cars, but without the kick. Fortunately it isn't so anymore, even without using larger engines.

That said, the car which impressed me the most for its speed and acceleration was the old Fiat Panda, with the 900 cc engine.
The car isn't fast by any mean, but if you think you're going that fast in a tuna's can, well, that's really fast.