PDA

View Full Version : Petrol Vs Diesel



kinan.f
09-18-2003, 01:53 AM
Imagine,for a moment, that you decided to purchase a brand new car & you went to the showroom to fetch out your dream vehicle with which you'll spend a few years.
You eventually find out that the car you desire is available in 2 versions:
1-The first version is powered with the well known V8 engine with the output of 300+ bhp that makes the car capable of reaching its first 100 kmh in about 6.0-7.0 secs (presumably).
2-The second version is powered with a new Diesel unit of the following specifications:
Twin-turbo V6 3.0 litres unit with approximately the same output power(265+ bhp),the same performance figures of the V8's (The same acceleration & electronically limited top speed figures) & complies with euro IV emission standards and above all more economical than the gasoline engine.

The two versions are identical in every other aspect such as interior luxury,comfort,electronic equipments & are availalble in the same color & trim package.

Batmobile_Turbo
09-19-2003, 05:32 PM
i guess i'm the first one who voted for the deisel. i would want a more fuel efficient car if it was pretty much the same as the V8. the y should do more research on deisel engines so they can replace gasoline ones and put them in sports cars maybe.

AcuraNSX
09-19-2003, 07:48 PM
im a total power guy so its petrol V8 for me

henk4
09-25-2003, 10:49 AM
Because of the torque and the economy diesel would be the prefered option. You could have mentioned that the specs are for Vision CLS.
It is strange that in particular in the USA big diesel engines have yet to be appreciated, as their characteristics are quite similar to the 6-7 litre V8's that were used in the majority of the big cars of the sixties and seventies, but for half the fuel consumption.

kinan.f
09-25-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by henk4
You could have mentioned that the specs are for Vision CLS.


Actually,I did not want to strict the thread to the CLS concept since such action will lead to a war between people who admire it & those who think otherwise & the whole idea of the thread will be missed!
Any way,according to Mercedes Benz the same Diesel engine will be available in E,S,SL,CL as standard starting autumn 2003 and since they were all commonly available in V8 engines I became curious to know what people think about Diesel powered cars being fitted to such muscular cars.

henk4
09-26-2003, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by kinan.f
Actually,I did not want to strict the thread to the CLS concept since such action will lead to a war between people who admire it & those who think otherwise & the whole idea of the thread will be missed!
Any way,according to Mercedes Benz the same Diesel engine will be available in E,S,SL,CL as standard starting autumn 2003 and since they were all commonly available in V8 engines I became curious to know what people think about Diesel powered cars being fitted to such muscular cars.

OK, on the European market the answer has already been given by the consumer, judging from the share in sales of diesel versions of the A8, the 7-series and the S-class. I think the multijet V8 will also be the best selling version of the new Maserati QP. Jaguar sales would significantly increase if they would introduce a diesel in the XJ (as they will do in the S and X-type).
It is all a matter of prices, as long as petrol prices in the USA are less than a third as overhere, the ususal conservatism will rule and the US market will not be receptive for the technology of the future. Just imagine a VW V10 built into a Viper, all hell would break loose.

piledriver
09-26-2003, 07:30 AM
My choice is the diesel engine...
īcos thereīs so many advantages on this engines such low emissions, a cheaper fuel and almost the same performance with the new generation of engines available nowadays....
I heard about some studies that said 40% of the sells last years were diesel engines...
the laws in my country donīt allow vehicles lighter than 3500 kg to have diesel engines...
I hate this law...
:mad:

NoOne
10-04-2003, 10:56 AM
My choice would be for the diesel, they produce more bottom end (low RPM) torque, this results in a smoother linear powerband, most large SUV's and trucks have the option of a diesel engine but there is a significant price premium for it.

They are also known for serious longevity compared to gasoline versions probably due to slower moving internals.

If production costs could be brought down, I think diesels would gain more popularity here in North America.

Ten years ago I would have chosen the gas engine hands down, just because the diesels were rougher running, noisy and temperamental especially in colder climates. They have definately improved since then.:)

Later

crisis
10-08-2003, 11:44 PM
Petrol anyday. Im not intersted in fuel efficiency when Im looking at my dream car. I know that diesels are becoming more "petrol like" in performance but until they can rev out to 6000 and sound like petrol motors the whole experience is missing something. They smell too. Rotaries leave me cold as well mainly because of their sound.

fpv_gtho
10-08-2003, 11:57 PM
diesels are getting pretty good, but id still take petrol over diesel. the experts here reckon if australia had the concentration of diesels that europe had, we'd be in a haze of pollution like that of Los Angeles, even the better diesels

henk4
10-09-2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by fpv_gtho
diesels are getting pretty good, but id still take petrol over diesel. the experts here reckon if australia had the concentration of diesels that europe had, we'd be in a haze of pollution like that of Los Angeles, even the better diesels

I live in a very populated area of the world, (only Bangladesh has more people per square mile). Might be time for the Australian experts to have look overhere, where almost 50% of the cars is diesel engined. I am wondering what you consider to be the "better diesels".

fpv_gtho
10-09-2003, 03:55 AM
i consider the better diesels, the ones coming from european manufacturers that are clean burning, low emission and trying to get rid of the idea that all diesels are greasy, they stink, pollute the world and oly belong in a truck. when i said experts say that if australia had the concentration of diesels that europe had, wed be in a haze of pollution like los angeles, the experts went on to say that the extra UV rays that australia experiences compared to that of europe means that australia wouldnt benefit from cleaner burning diesels, but ive yet to figure out how they came to that conclusion. its similar to how colours in the sunlight look different in the northern hemisphere to what they look in the southern hemisphere i guess

henk4
10-09-2003, 04:33 AM
Well this really sounds strange. It means that the hole in the ozon layer would make diesel engines much more polluting than petrol engines? Never heard of that, but of course we do not have this hole problem. Are you sure that the ''expert"did take modern diesels into account?
I myself have a modern 2 litre diesel engine, that with some changes to the motormanegement produces 135 BHP and a healthy 300 NM of torque. Normal mileage (in kilometers) 16-18 km per litre. 20 is also possible without being a turtle on the road.

fpv_gtho
10-09-2003, 04:43 AM
it doesnt matter how clean they make diesels run, its their emission characteristics that do it. the info that told me all that was out of the latest wheels magazine. someone wrote in saying that they were appalled at the limited range of engines in australian cars compared to that of european cars. the guy went on to sya he didnt understand why manufacturers were still developing petrol engines when diesel engines have proven themselves as good performance wise as petrol engines, have lower consumption and usually more torque at lower rpm's, over a broader range. i guess it was the editor of the magazine that replied to the letter, saying that a mass shift to diesels in australia would mean health costs would need to be increased, as australias UV intensive environment wouldnt mix with the highly photo-reactive emissions of diesels

henk4
10-09-2003, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by crisis
Petrol anyday. Im not intersted in fuel efficiency when Im looking at my dream car. I know that diesels are becoming more "petrol like" in performance but until they can rev out to 6000 and sound like petrol motors the whole experience is missing something. They smell too. Rotaries leave me cold as well mainly because of their sound.

Just wanted to ask: What is the most modern diesel you driven or have been driven in? The elegance of the diesel engine is that they don't need to run to 6000 revs to get the best out of it. The experience is that out of nowhere you instantly develop tons of torque, without having to wake up your neigbour due to overevving your engine. Furthermore I have to explicitly tell my first time passengers that they are in a diesel car, and they normally have difficulties in believing that.

henk4
10-09-2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by fpv_gtho
it doesnt matter how clean they make diesels run, its their emission characteristics that do it. the info that told me all that was out of the latest wheels magazine. someone wrote in saying that they were appalled at the limited range of engines in australian cars compared to that of european cars. the guy went on to sya he didnt understand why manufacturers were still developing petrol engines when diesel engines have proven themselves as good performance wise as petrol engines, have lower consumption and usually more torque at lower rpm's, over a broader range. i guess it was the editor of the magazine that replied to the letter, saying that a mass shift to diesels in australia would mean health costs would need to be increased, as australias UV intensive environment wouldnt mix with the highly photo-reactive emissions of diesels

If this is really correct than I suppose an instant ban on any diesel power (including trains and trucks) should be applied to Australia (and New Zealand). I am not sure whether I can trust editors of an automotive magazine that is probably dependent on advertisement sales from Australian produced cars. He would not be very eager to tell them that they should switch to diesel, so he is coming up with these sort of things. Nevertheless, if there is scientific proof of these photo-reactive emissions, does that still hold when a particle filter such as is in use by PSA is applied?

fpv_gtho
10-09-2003, 07:45 AM
i havent got a clue about that last sentence, but theres no problem with diesels in australia, cause the vast majority of them are only offered on SUV's which are yet to dominate the markets, and petrol prices havent pushed people into consuming less. your right to be wary about trusting the editor, but hes the editor of a well known, 40 year old magazine, so i doubt he got the job simply by putting forward his 2c's on everything

henk4
10-09-2003, 09:58 AM
PSA introduced a particle filter 3 years ago when they introduced the 2.2 litre HDI engine in the 607. In the meantime it has become standard on all HDI engines. Initially these filters needed a costly revamp after 80,000 km but they are now maintenance free.
The german industry was wary about the effectiveness of such filters. Subsequently the German Automobil Club (ADAC) carried out a test whereby 80,000 km's were simulated using a Mercedes E-type Diesel and the Peugeot. While the Mercedes produced three litre bottles full of particals, the Peugeot managed to fill half of the bottom of one bottle.
Only now the German authorities have started to push for the introduction of these filters, and we might actually see them in 2004. This would indeed be the next step in global cleaner diesel technology.
It is a misconception that only European diesels are modern, also the Japanese (Toyota D-4d, Mazda's Di-CD and now recently Honda) have introduced engines that are fully up to standard. For other newbies in this area you might also want to look at the specifications of the Jaguar 2.7 V6 (Ford/PSA engine).

crisis
10-09-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by henk4
Just wanted to ask: What is the most modern diesel you driven or have been driven in? The elegance of the diesel engine is that they don't need to run to 6000 revs to get the best out of it. The experience is that out of nowhere you instantly develop tons of torque, without having to wake up your neigbour due to overevving your engine. Furthermore I have to explicitly tell my first time passengers that they are in a diesel car, and they normally have difficulties in believing that.
Old ones. I have just returned from the middle of the outback where we were taking turns climbing a big sand dune in our 4x4s. The petrol engines had to rev to keep up momentum to get over. The turbo diesel 80 series Landcruiser climbed at lower revs and with less momentum. Your right about less revs for more torque. Great in 4x4s, great for getting from a-b in passenger vehicles. Cant imagine getting the same thrill from flogging one every now and then like I get from my 350 V8 Commodore. All of your comments are logical and make sense. Sometimes good fun is not about good sense.

BiTurbo
10-09-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by crisis


Cant imagine getting the same thrill from flogging one every now and then like I get from my 350 V8 Commodore.




Hey - wouldn't that be cool
doin' laps in your 2010 diesel Monaro (GTO)
:rolleyes:

henk4
10-09-2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by crisis
Old ones. I have just returned from the middle of the outback where we were taking turns climbing a big sand dune in our 4x4s. The petrol engines had to rev to keep up momentum to get over. The turbo diesel 80 series Landcruiser climbed at lower revs and with less momentum. Your right about less revs for more torque. Great in 4x4s, great for getting from a-b in passenger vehicles. Cant imagine getting the same thrill from flogging one every now and then like I get from my 350 V8 Commodore. All of your comments are logical and make sense. Sometimes good fun is not about good sense.

Just for your info, a Dutch magazine this week compared four SUV's, the Merc, the Porsche the BMW 4.4 and the Tuareg V10 as the only diesel. In performance and drivability the diesel beat all the three others. I have to admit that I never drove a big V8 petrol engined car, but the characteristics of the modern diesel are very much comparable to lazy petrol V8 that once unleashed produce amazing performances.

crisis
10-09-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by henk4
Just for your info, a Dutch magazine this week compared four SUV's, the Merc, the Porsche the BMW 4.4 and the Tuareg V10 as the only diesel. In performance and drivability the diesel beat all the three others. I have to admit that I never drove a big V8 petrol engined car, but the characteristics of the modern diesel are very much comparable to lazy petrol V8 that once unleashed produce amazing performances.
Some comparison. A V10 diesel up against V8s. I would not be surprised to see it win in driveability terms for off road use. The paradox here is that none of these toys are intended for off road use. Still the V10 diesel would make a great towing bus. SUVs and 4x4s aside, the start of this thread mentioned something along the lines of dream cars and in my mind Im thinking Ferraris etc. diesels have their place but I dont think they are synonomous with thrilling driving. Most of you justification for diesels seems to centre around the points of economy and ease of drivability. Clearly our priorities lie in opposite areas.

henk4
10-10-2003, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by crisis
Some comparison. A V10 diesel up against V8s. I would not be surprised to see it win in driveability terms for off road use. The paradox here is that none of these toys are intended for off road use. Still the V10 diesel would make a great towing bus. SUVs and 4x4s aside, the start of this thread mentioned something along the lines of dream cars and in my mind Im thinking Ferraris etc. diesels have their place but I dont think they are synonomous with thrilling driving. Most of you justification for diesels seems to centre around the points of economy and ease of drivability. Clearly our priorities lie in opposite areas.

to further clarify, they did not test these SUV's off road, otherwise the BMW would not stand any chance of surviving. So in normal paved road use the diesel came out first. (as a sideline, I find such cars total crap anyway, but that was not the issue).

So my suggestion is, try to find a decent BMW 3 or 5 series fitted with a modern diesel and try for yourself. The new BMW 530D outperforms the 530I.

Egg Nog
10-28-2003, 10:51 PM
My parents recently bought a 2000 Jetta TDi 5-speed, and frankly, I'm impressed. It'll take hills and whatever else you can throw at it in fifth gear without shuddering. Makes you really love those immense torque figures. ;) It's a dream to drive and gets over 1000km to the tank during city/highway use. Very Imressive Indeed. :)

FLORIN70IL
10-29-2003, 09:33 AM
ok,I see that americans and aussies are preffering gas engine and cannot blame them for it-the americans diesels are very low tech that's mean very lazy ,noisy,nonefficient.I'm driving a GMC Savana(6.5 liter turbo diesel) so I understand their point of view. The diesel is my choice but only V10(313bhp) or V8(275bhp) from VW Tuareg or A8 .I have to tell you that
the new Toyota Avensis diesel is quieter than the same car with gas engine,the same situation is with Land Rover Freelander,Toyota Rav4,VW Tuareg,and other cars availabe with gas and diesel engines
We all know how cheap is the gas in USA so for europeans, fuel costs and CO2 emissions are very important.

henk4
10-29-2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Egg Nog
It's a dream to drive and gets over 1000km to the tank during city/highway use. Very Imressive Indeed. :)

This is my normal driving experience, dreams can come true, even on the other side of the big pond.

Egg Nog
10-29-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by henk4
This is my normal driving experience, dreams can come true, even on the other side of the big pond.

It's awesome, I love it. :)

-datsun 1600-
11-26-2003, 02:57 AM
I chose diesel cause it said they have the same performance and diesel is more cheaper

bum-man
11-26-2003, 01:34 PM
diesel obviously...fairly simple motors and they last forever.

DasModell
11-30-2003, 06:08 AM
i choose both :) ...
probably on the family car . i would chose diesel .. but of course the fun car :) aka track car ... petrol :)

Falcon500
11-30-2003, 05:19 PM
Well i recently have had a drive of a ford courier turbo diesel and while i must say it wasnt a thrilling drive (it accelerated like my 80 datsun sunny) it effortlessly pulled and got great fuel eccomy i have also drivan a diesel powerd gemini (isuzu) and it was a true slug it still efortlessly drove around and its fuel ecconmy was unbelievable!
I personally would prefer to own a petrol motor as the high resale price of diesel motors and the cost to replace them on the off chance somthing gos wrong. But i wouldent complain about having one in a family car just drop the family in and whatch it go.

fpv_gtho
12-03-2003, 03:44 AM
well im assuming that gemini's diesel unit wasnt anything considered high-tec, or the courier for that matter which simply runs a 3 valve SOHC head and intercooler

Falcon500
12-03-2003, 03:43 PM
Well high tech or nottheir both quite expensiveunits to maintain and reapce should anything go wrong. And the gemi was very smokey too

BiTurbo
12-03-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by Falcon500
Well high tech or nottheir both quite expensiveunits to maintain and reapce should anything go wrong. And the gemi was very smokey too
Not to mention it is was considered to be a joke - what a piece of crap that shows the pandemonium that struck with the 'oil crises' and there are 100's of 'new' cars to come out of the late 70's that were just as bad.

Falcon500
12-03-2003, 05:54 PM
Well the oil crisis did hit very hard and everyone had a panick attack and in the process choked up a lot of their cars with pollution gear and other fuel saving gizmos. There recently have been stories about another fuel crisis that will surface in the next decade my old man laughed and said for the three hes lived through they have always found new wells and itll more then likely be in the next 50 we might have genuine problems.
Not that we might get that far victoria intends to ban pertol powerd cars 2015 i doubt theyll do it but if they do the other states will more then likely follow :(

BiTurbo
12-03-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Falcon500


victoria intends to ban pertol powerd cars 2015 i doubt theyll do it but if they do the other states will more then likely follow :(
Yeah and California were not going to let any car manufacturer sell cars in their state unless 5% of them were zero emissions - in 1995.

fpv_gtho
12-03-2003, 10:18 PM
its all just BS to get the government off the manufacturers backs. honda and toyota i think currently rent fuel cell cars in Japan, so its almost time for the governments to start laying off a bit with the introduction gof hydrogen/electric power

Falcon500
12-04-2003, 03:22 AM
I dont like the idea of these hydrogen powerd cars despite all the good things that come with it there must be some downsides. And they almost practically cant get rid of all petrol cars by 2015 notice how i said practically there just doing to well i dont know there just saying that stuff to make the greens happy so they can share seats/votes in parliemnt.

Egg Nog
12-05-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Falcon500
I dont like the idea of these hydrogen powerd cars despite all the good things that come with it there must be some downsides. And they almost practically cant get rid of all petrol cars by 2015 notice how i said practically there just doing to well i dont know there just saying that stuff to make the greens happy so they can share seats/votes in parliemnt.

Are you nuts? You think there are environmentalists sitting in parliament? Hardly :)

Before you underanalyze, you should probably take a look at the facts. There's plenty of information online, and most of it should help you reach a better conclusion. Assuming downsides it the wrong way to go.

I wrote a 36-page research essay on this whole thing a while back, and I only see one real disadvantage: The production of the hydrogen itself. That's the most costly. Other than processes like electrolysis, hydrogen is usually derived from fossil fuels, therfore eliminating the sustainable properties that make it so desireable.

The fact is, using standardized hydrogen fuel is a direction that we definately need to go in. Having people around in denial and political figureheads like George W. Bush is only holding us back from the real Government subsidization that should be going on.

Falcon500
12-06-2003, 03:58 AM
Not only a few envirometalist here but a whole party called the greens (bunch of grass eating hippies they are) our local premier bob carr amember of the labour party enjoyshaving the greens support in parliament and didnt do any back burning of cleaning up of debris as well as not giving us enoughfire fighters which resulted in the fire which englufed the capital city (incidently the same city i live in) but thats not what were talking about here.
Im not saying its a bad system i hardly said boo about it the worst thing i directly said was i dont like it. iprefer fossil fuels I dont like electric cars one iota and im not too big on other fuels althoughif alcahol was a more raliblefuel and didnt require having the lines flushed every month i wouldent mind that.

fpv_gtho
12-06-2003, 04:15 AM
im thinking you just dont want your car to sound like an electric shaver

kennyknoxville
12-06-2003, 02:56 PM
diesel.

or hydrogen.

henk4
12-06-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by fpv_gtho
im thinking you just dont want your car to sound like an electric shaver

I shave manually, what is the sound I am missing?

Egg Nog
12-06-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Falcon500 Im not saying its a bad system i hardly said boo about it the worst thing i directly said was i dont like it. iprefer fossil fuels I dont like electric cars one iota and im not too big on other fuels....

Yes, I realised what you said, but typically you should try to give some reasons why you say it.

You don't like the idea of hydrogen-powered or alternative fuel cars. Why?

fpv_gtho
12-06-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by henk4
I shave manually, what is the sound I am missing?

it can depend. it could vary between bugger all to the sound of a beehive

henk4
12-07-2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by fpv_gtho
it can depend. it could vary between bugger all to the sound of a beehive

I would prefer the bugger all sound, whatever that is. Anyway, if I want to hear engine sounds the diesel gives you more, but strangely enough uninformed passengers in my car always have difficulties in accepting that it's a diesel they are (not) hearing.
On another note why are people fitting out cars with these very expensive sound systems which make it impossible to hear engine noises anyway especially when they turn op the bass in such a manner that you can hear them coming from miles away.

Falcon500
12-07-2003, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Egg Nog
Yes, I realised what you said, but typically you should try to give some reasons why you say it.

You don't like the idea of hydrogen-powered or alternative fuel cars. Why? Well the system has been reasoonbly unsecsessful in its testing fromlasti heard (i dont follow it hardly at all)ive heard stories about the possible explosions that could occur when the cars crash (wether their true or not is another matter) and just a general disturst for the idea.

Egg Nog
12-07-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Falcon500
Well the system has been reasoonbly unsecsessful in its testing fromlasti heard (i dont follow it hardly at all)ive heard stories about the possible explosions that could occur when the cars crash (wether their true or not is another matter) and just a general disturst for the idea.

1. When Nickolaus Otto invented the first four-stroke Internal Combustion Engine, he got it right the first time. :) Good thing too, because otherwise he would've given up.

2. For some reason people worry about hydrogen exploding people its a flammable substance. Oh wait a second, so is gasoline... the risks are very similar to those "risks" that we take driving around every day.

Also, Hydrogen dissipates much faster than gasoline (and isn't environmentally harmful), so in the event of a spill hydrogen is remarkeably more safe.

megotmea7
12-08-2003, 02:20 AM
Also, Hydrogen dissipates much faster than gasoline (and isn't environmentally harmful), so in the event of a spill hydrogen is remarkeably more safe.
i was reading about a test one proposed hydrogen fuel tanks and they took a full one and shot a high velocity incinidary round at it and after the initial explosion of impact and slight combustion the gas escaped so quickly it put itself out and dissipated into the atmosphere befor any serious damage. correct me if im wrong but hydrogen is less dense than helium at one atmosphere

Egg Nog
12-08-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by megotmea7
i was reading about a test one proposed hydrogen fuel tanks and they took a full one and shot a high velocity incinidary round at it and after the initial explosion of impact and slight combustion the gas escaped so quickly it put itself out and dissipated into the atmosphere befor any serious damage. correct me if im wrong but hydrogen is less dense than helium at one atmosphere

Yes, hydrogen is the least dense of all known elements. I beleive helium is about .6 the density of air, while hydrogen is about .2 or .3

Anyhow, thank for backing me up here. :)

EDIT: I am a stupid chemist :) Read below if you want some decent information. Mine were estimates, and they were wrong. Thanks fvp_gtho :)

fpv_gtho
12-08-2003, 10:38 PM
well to give a clue about the density of hydrogen, helium and oxygen, theyre atomic weights are 1, 4 and 16 respectively, although i dont know what "air" would be................

-datsun 1600-
12-23-2003, 09:56 PM
i dont think "air" is a scientific element lol

fpv_gtho
12-23-2003, 10:18 PM
yeah, air like sea water, is something u can only be sure whats in it by testing all of it

fpv_gtho
12-23-2003, 10:22 PM
to give an indication, air is about 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen

ravi_mody
04-09-2004, 11:26 AM
Petrol Enignes are any day better because cars fly with petrol instantly no matter what the power , displacement or torque of the car. But, Diesel Engines need a very high performance units and also high performance diesel and still lag behind petrol cars atleast in terms of acceleration and smoothness but, in the long run Diesel proves to take the car to a higher top speed.

Egg Nog
04-09-2004, 04:20 PM
Petrol Enignes are any day better because cars fly with petrol instantly no matter what the power , displacement or torque of the car. But, Diesel Engines need a very high performance units and also high performance diesel and still lag behind petrol cars atleast in terms of acceleration and smoothness but, in the long run Diesel proves to take the car to a higher top speed.

What?!??

That was basically the most illogical string of facts ever. Can you try to explain exactly what you mean?

Need4Speed
04-11-2004, 03:36 AM
Same here, i didnt get what you ment, so whats better (from your point of view)?

Personally i am not going to lay forward my opinion, first im gonna have to do more research into Disel engines.

Spastik_Roach
04-11-2004, 04:02 AM
My friends parents own a 98 Ford Mondeo Turbo Diesel 1.8, and actually has much less engine noise than my mums 96 petrol Toyota Corona, isn't smoky, and altho having a classic diesel sound, it does sound very refined and actually quite nice! They also have a 86 Ford Falcon LPG, and thats, err, bit noisy...

henk4
04-11-2004, 01:34 PM
My friends parents own a 98 Ford Mondeo Turbo Diesel 1.8, and actually has much less engine noise than my mums 96 petrol Toyota Corona, isn't smoky, and altho having a classic diesel sound, it does sound very refined and actually quite nice! They also have a 86 Ford Falcon LPG, and thats, err, bit noisy...

And you have to realise that the 1998 mondeo is still a conventional turbo diesel, so no common rail system, which turns every diesel into a pussycat.

Spastik_Roach
04-11-2004, 03:28 PM
You need to make your sig "UCP's Most Hardcore Diesel Fanboy"

henk4
04-12-2004, 12:27 AM
You need to make your sig "UCP's Most Hardcore Diesel Fanboy"
Adept would probably be better, fanboy sounds that you are aiming for the unobtainable, but I have already obtained it. :)

Spastik_Roach
04-12-2004, 02:11 AM
Well hop to it!

Ru$$ky
05-13-2004, 05:22 AM
Although you cant ignore recent development of diesel engines and such facts that they are just as if not faster than their petrol counterparts. And they are almost dont rattle when cold. And they have more usable torque.
For me, petrol win everytime as you can rev it! If would make suitable noise and not run out of puff as diesels do at high revs. You actually need to work through the gears to stay in the power band, where as powerful diesels are better suited for auto boxes as you have to change very early and often to stay within 2,000-3,000 rpm .

henk4
05-13-2004, 05:39 AM
For me, petrol win everytime as you can rev it! If would make suitable noise and not run out of puff as diesels do at high revs. You actually need to work through the gears to stay in the power band, where as powerful diesels are better suited for auto boxes as you have to change very early and often to stay within 2,000-3,000 rpm .

Revs are not a purpose per se. For petrol engines they are necessary to get the most out of it. For diesel engines you just don't need them for effortless and still impressive propulsion. It is not that you have to change very early, it is that you can change very early and still gain unexpected speed. Apart from all the economy stuff this makes a modern diesel such a comfortable ride in modern (too busy) traffic.

Waatz
05-15-2004, 02:07 AM
Who wants Deisel? smelly old things, rattle and clank, dirty black oil when you wind off that oil filter for it's first service, Pooooowy!
Gimme some PETROL

SilverArrowZ
05-15-2004, 09:45 AM
Why do i choose petrol V8? Well, if that 300ponies is from an NA V8 (first post didn't say anything about turbo charged the petrol unit), ofcourse i will choose it. Reasons:

1. NA petrol V8 still have tuning space, and without tuning it is already 300horses.
2. Diesel V8 is turbocharged and yet provide lower power.

These are what will i do after i get that petrol V8 unit:
1. Find a set of forged piston
2. Install twin turbo running on 30psi each, which should give me something like 900ponies.
3. Install a high angle racing cam
4. Get some slick tires
5. Install a set of 500bhp NOS direct port shot
6. Install new custom made ecu
7. get rid of all the junk at the back of the trunk and stuff (etc. rear sit, spare tire)
8. Short ratio gear box..
9. install launch control
10. Burn rubber in local drag strip..

oh.. u mean without modifying?

BenB2007
09-13-2007, 02:34 PM
i've just come back from driving a hired audi A3 2.0 Turbo Diesel on the Autobahn (highway with no speed limit). I reached 200km/h (120mph) at 3500rpm in 6th. very comfortable. in total we had the car for 4 days, drove for 4 hours on the autobahn averaging 150-160km/h (90-100mph) plus many hours of slow country and city driving. the whole journey consumed about 45 litres of diesel and we drove for about 500km (about 300miles). it had lots of poke (accelerated away from many bigger mercs and bmw's) and was very responsive with the turbo. to me, the A3 2.0TDi is one of the best cars i have driven for perfomance and economy. put your foot down and be surprised as it throws you into your seat, while still feeling comfortable. lots of torque.

hightower99
09-14-2007, 12:41 AM
In this case I would take the Diesel...
most of the reasons have been mentioned..

Ferrer
09-14-2007, 02:03 AM
All of this will eventually become irrelevant, if the Mercedes-Benz F700 Concept is anything to go by.

jediali
09-14-2007, 06:13 AM
All of this will eventually become irrelevant, if the Mercedes-Benz F700 Concept is anything to go by.

Im currently looking into hcci, its very interesting. Besically now having an ecu and combustion chamber clever enough we can have petrol compression ignition predicatble and controllable..what a technical achievement! This is great for avoiding the production of N0x but the lower compression ratio means lower thermal efficiencies. The low Cr may be due to turbocharging in some of my examples though. The big advantage lies with low CO2 output, so thinking of the benfit of that (UK)...low tax...who needs low tax?...work rep cars...whats the best rep car?...The vectra :D hence its pioneering a hcci engine aswell as merc.

drakkie
09-14-2007, 09:58 AM
All of this will eventually become irrelevant, if the Mercedes-Benz F700 Concept is anything to go by.

I'm not sure what concept it is.. I have been kind of busy lately to read up all the stories with the pictures. Is it equipped with that engine that can work as a diesel and a petrol ? I read about that thing two months ago, very interesting technology indeed !!! Let's hope they can make it reliable enough, as that I heard was the biggest problem so far..!

Ferrer
09-14-2007, 10:18 AM
I'm not sure what concept it is.. I have been kind of busy lately to read up all the stories with the pictures. Is it equipped with that engine that can work as a diesel and a petrol ? I read about that thing two months ago, very interesting technology indeed !!! Let's hope they can make it reliable enough, as that I heard was the biggest problem so far..!
Yup, that's the one.

Lets Gekiga In
09-17-2007, 01:12 AM
Good diesel is winning. :)

-What-
09-17-2007, 01:35 AM
Sure, the dream is cool..but how many of you own diesels.

The outcome of the pole is nonsense. Test drive a diesel and then test drive a GAS car...diesels aren't much fun. Who gives a damn about their alleged fuel savings....ALLEGED. And the lower emissions of diesels is straight-up foolishness.

Diesels are a big, dirty lie.


Good diesel is winning. :)

And what do you drive.

Ferrer
09-17-2007, 03:12 AM
Sure, the dream is cool..but how many of you own diesels.

The outcome of the pole is nonsense. Test drive a diesel and then test drive a GAS car...diesels aren't much fun. Who gives a damn about their alleged fuel savings....ALLEGED. And the lower emissions of diesels is straight-up foolishness.

Diesels are a big, dirty lie.
It pains me to say this, but you couldn't be more wrong. If you want good performance and not to invest your whole salary in gas you have to have a diesel. For instance the latest BMWs are amazing. The BMW 120d has 186bhp and 394Nm (291ft-lb) does 0-100km/h in 7"3 seconds and still does 6,2l/100km (37,9 US mpg). And those are measured figures, not the manufacturers claims.

henk4
09-17-2007, 10:31 AM
Sure, the dream is cool..but how many of you own diesels.

The outcome of the pole is nonsense. Test drive a diesel and then test drive a GAS car...diesels aren't much fun. Who gives a damn about their alleged fuel savings....ALLEGED. And the lower emissions of diesels is straight-up foolishness.

Diesels are a big, dirty lie.



And what do you drive.

Mr. What at his best once more.....

drakkie
09-17-2007, 11:06 AM
Sure, the dream is cool..but how many of you own diesels.

The outcome of the pole is nonsense. Test drive a diesel and then test drive a GAS car...diesels aren't much fun. Who gives a damn about their alleged fuel savings....ALLEGED. And the lower emissions of diesels is straight-up foolishness.

Diesels are a big, dirty lie.



And what do you drive.

I wonder who drives on GAS on these forums. As far as I know, most drive diesel or petrol, not GAS ;)

jediali
09-17-2007, 11:12 AM
I wonder who drives on GAS on these forums. As far as I know, most drive diesel or petrol, not GAS ;)

Well some us dont wear anything over our pants either

henk4
09-17-2007, 11:26 AM
I wonder who drives on GAS on these forums. As far as I know, most drive diesel or petrol, not GAS ;)

Gas is *(american) short for gasoline....many of us drive benz here....

drakkie
09-17-2007, 01:35 PM
Gas is *(american) short for gasoline....many of us drive benz here....

So i'd be driving a Benz then ! Now that'd be some upgrade, from a sAlto to a Mercedes-Benz :D

clutch-monkey
09-17-2007, 03:17 PM
I wonder who drives on GAS on these forums. As far as I know, most drive diesel or petrol, not GAS ;)

pretty sure blue supra and a few others have gas (LPG) converted vehicles ;)

Cyco
09-17-2007, 03:32 PM
nota definitely does as well.

charged
09-18-2007, 03:12 AM
I will in 2 weeks nephew has just got his LPG license and needs a few family cars first before he goes retail. Should cost me $200 all up after the rebate.
58 cents a litre FTW, should recoup the after a couplke of months

henk4
09-18-2007, 03:14 AM
I will in 2 weeks nephew has just got his LPG license and needs a few family cars first before he goes retail. Should cost me $200 all up after the rebate.
58 cents a litre FTW, should recoup the after a couplke of months

yep, and it is very unlikely that your car will be stopped at the Eurotunnel, which does not allow cars fitted with LPG tanks:)

charged
09-18-2007, 03:36 AM
yep, and it is very unlikely that your car will be stopped at the Eurotunnel, which does not allow cars fitted with LPG tanks:)

If I end up at the Eurotunnel Im lost, very lost:o :)

-What-
09-18-2007, 07:30 AM
It pains me to say this, but you couldn't be more wrong. If you want good performance and not to invest your whole salary in gas you have to have a diesel. For instance the latest BMWs are amazing. The BMW 120d has 186bhp and 394Nm (291ft-lb) does 0-100km/h in 7"3 seconds and still does 6,2l/100km (37,9 US mpg). And those are measured figures, not the manufacturers claims.

37+ mpg?

When an AMERICAN tested the car, he received 27 mpg. And while 7.3 seconds in the 0-62 test is decent, I'm sure the diesel's QUARTER MILE time was terrible...which is typical of diesels.

You keep your dirty BMW 120d for $25,000...a bargain price I'm sure BMW has placed on the car in an effort to move diesel vehicles...and I'll take a cheaper, more powerful, faster, cleaner, better sounding, and equally real-world efficient GAS POWERED Honda Civic Si.

The BMW 120d is offered in my great country.


For every diesel you name with decent specs, I can name a cheaper and cleaner GAS powered vehicle with better specs.

IBrake4Rainbows
09-18-2007, 07:36 AM
May i suggest the Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion?

72.4 MPG/ 60.3US MPG?

drakkie
09-18-2007, 08:02 AM
May i suggest the Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion?

72.4 MPG/ 60.3US MPG?

My Alto comes near it with 50 MPG or a little over it, with relative ease in daily driving and in mixed traffic (10 km country roads, 30 km highway and 8 km city driving daily). And I'm even very slightly faster than the Polo too :) Perhaps newer models with injection would be even more efficient.

What everybody seems to forget though is that neither of the engines is perfect. A petrol engine for example is best in changing conditions, while a diesel is best in long running around the same rev range, for example Autobahn driving.

Petrols are less fuel efficient than Diesels, but usually have a bit more "elasticity". Diesels emit more NOx then again...

This argument will never be solved here, as everybody has it's personal preference. The individual engine types both have drawbacks and advantages. One weighs up against the other and because of this a decision can never be reached. It's as simple as that.

My personal preference lies with Diesels as they provide a nicer ride IMO. Because i drive almost 500 km a week (most highway), a diesel would also be the cheaper solution for me. Purchasing price is what stops me.. I also feel the Diesels have more development ahead of them. Just look at the ease with which some manufacturers achieve the Euro 4 &5 norms, even without particulate filters...

jediali
09-18-2007, 08:59 AM
Im willing to let imature posts go by but if you talk technical...don't be woolly about it.....


Petrols are less fuel efficient than Diesels, but usually have a bit more "elasticity".
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:confused:


My personal preference lies with Diesels as they provide a nicer ride
calrify...engine wont give you a better chassis/suspension setup. I assume you mean better cruising engine / more relaxing?:confused:

not so critically:

I also feel the Diesels have more development ahead of them.
I would say the opossite actually, i think diesel development is slowing down.:rolleyes:

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

Cyco
09-18-2007, 09:22 AM
Im glad your into the tech. side Drakkie but im worried about guests who come on here and might believe anything you post

Edited for accuracy.

IWantAnAudiRS6
09-18-2007, 09:41 AM
My Alto comes near it with 50 MPG or a little over it, with relative ease in daily driving and in mixed traffic (10 km country roads, 30 km highway and 8 km city driving daily). And I'm even very slightly faster than the Polo too :) Perhaps newer models with injection would be even more efficient.
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.


What everybody seems to forget though is that neither of the engines is perfect. A petrol engine for example is best in changing conditions, while a diesel is best in long running around the same rev range, for example Autobahn driving.
I agree with your first statement, neither are perfect. I'd say the petrol engine sucks for changing conditions. I ran into traffic today and my instant consumption dropped from around 42mpg to 30mpg- used over 3 litres of petrol for 1.2 miles of traffic, doing nasty things to my clutch. When I did the same thing in a diesel Auris, I was doing 46.3mpg in traffic, and 50mpg on the open road with a lot of fast downchanging and basically driving like a nutter.


Petrols are less fuel efficient than Diesels, but usually have a bit more "elasticity". Diesels emit more NOx then 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.

This argument will never be solved here, as everybody has it's personal preference. The individual engine types both have drawbacks and advantages. One weighs up against the other and because of this a decision can never be reached. It's as simple as that.
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.

My personal preference lies with Diesels as they provide a nicer ride IMO. Because i drive almost 500 km a week (most highway), a diesel would also be the cheaper solution for me. Purchasing price is what stops me.. I also feel the Diesels have more development ahead of them. Just look at the ease with which some manufacturers achieve the Euro 4 &5 norms, even without particulate filters...
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.

nota
09-18-2007, 10:25 AM
37+ mpg?

When an AMERICAN tested the car, he received 27 mpg.
Who cares how dopey the tester was?

And while 7.3 seconds in the 0-62 test is decent, I'm sure the diesel's QUARTER MILE time was terrible...which is typical of diesels.
C&D's > as-tested (http://www.caranddriver.com/minitest/10592/bmw-120d.html) < QUARTER MILE figure of 15.6 for the BMW 120d 4cyl diesel-automatic econocar is as terrible as one of > THESE < (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT5K_UyDAA&mode=related&search=)

You keep your dirty BMW 120d for $25,000...a bargain price I'm sure BMW has placed on the car in an effort to move diesel vehicles...and I'll take a cheaper, more powerful, faster, cleaner, better sounding, and equally real-world efficient GAS POWERED Honda Civic Si.

The BMW 120d is offered in my great country.


For every diesel you name with decent specs, I can name a cheaper and cleaner GAS powered vehicle with better specs.
Australian market:

Ford Falcon ute 4-litre I6 ute mono-LPG is currently cheaper to buy and costs less to run than 4cyl petrol OR diesel Toyota HiLux

Renault Megane Turbo-Diesel 6-speed sedan = Govt rated @ 5.8 L/100km = 48.7 mpg or 40 US-mpg

Aa adjudged by some recent local per-litre LPG pricings the Mitsubishi 380 Sequential-Gas-Injection dual-fuel 3.8 V6 could on gas easily deliver the petrol cost-equivalency of 70+ mpg hwy

Try finding a class-equivalent petrol vehicle to these for a cheaper AU list price

drakkie
09-18-2007, 01:30 PM
Oi ! Here comes the long answering/clarifying my views. :rolleyes:


Im willing to let imature posts go by but if you talk technical...don't be woolly about it.....

[quote]
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: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?:confused:


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.:rolleyes:


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 (http://www.amt.nl), 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 :p 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 ?



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 :rolleyes: 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...

-What-
09-18-2007, 04:04 PM
Who cares how dopey the tester was?

C&D's > as-tested (http://www.caranddriver.com/minitest/10592/bmw-120d.html) < QUARTER MILE figure of 15.6 for the BMW 120d 4cyl diesel-automatic econocar is as terrible as one of > THESE < (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjT5K_UyDAA&mode=related&search=)
Don't turn into a sissy.

And since you wanna play games, one of THOSE is less terrible than THIS diesel...http://www.bandag.com/download/ImagesLogos/dumptruck.jpg


Australian market:

Ford Falcon ute 4-litre I6 ute mono-LPG is currently cheaper to buy and costs less to run than 4cyl petrol OR diesel Toyota HiLux

Renault Megane Turbo-Diesel 6-speed sedan = Govt rated @ 5.8 L/100km = 48.7 mpg or 40 US-mpg

Aa adjudged by some recent local per-litre LPG pricings the Mitsubishi 380 Sequential-Gas-Injection dual-fuel 3.8 V6 could on gas easily deliver the petrol cost-equivalency of 70+ mpg hwy

Try finding a class-equivalent petrol vehicle to these for a cheaper AU list price
First of all, I don't f*ck with AU or their list prices so don't ask me to search for that. Secondly, you throwin' all this foreign lingo at me that I'm not understanding. As an American, I was taught to communicate clearly. What is this mono-LPG? And what are those cars? We don't get those...they don't exist. I can't verify what you're talking about...all I know is that I said something about a Civic Si being more than some BMW DIESEL and you went off on some tangent with musclecars and Australia. I'm not chasing this topic around the world for you...and what is this forum's problem anyway? Are you car enthusiasts or bitches? Your diesel is better than my GAS car because it burns slightly less fuel at a sacrifice of driving enjoyment?

And don't bring your 80hp Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion to a discussion about dream vehicles. A man, you are not. Has that BlueMotion's efficiency been privately tested? BY AN AMERICAN? I stress for an American test because apparently, yall have got some corrupt corporations over there that'll morph specs to the public to push products...*cough* BBC...*cough*...


I'm a sports-car enthusiast. I don't want to talk mpg or lpg efficiency anymore.

The_Canuck
09-18-2007, 04:39 PM
Are you car enthusiasts or bitches? Your diesel is better than my GAS car because it burns slightly less fuel at a sacrifice of driving enjoyment?


Right, and what do you drive?

-What-
09-18-2007, 05:56 PM
Right, and what do you drive?

A modified 5-speed 1987 Mustang GT and a 2006 Lexus IS 250.

Mr.Tiv
09-18-2007, 06:35 PM
Don't turn into a sissy.

And since you wanna play games, one of THOSE is less terrible than THIS diesel...http://www.bandag.com/download/ImagesLogos/dumptruck.jpg


First of all, I don't f*ck with AU or their list prices so don't ask me to search for that. Secondly, you throwin' all this foreign lingo at me that I'm not understanding. As an American, I was taught to communicate clearly. What is this mono-LPG? And what are those cars? We don't get those...they don't exist. I can't verify what you're talking about...all I know is that I said something about a Civic Si being more than some BMW DIESEL and you went off on some tangent with musclecars and Australia. I'm not chasing this topic around the world for you...and what is this forum's problem anyway? Are you car enthusiasts or bitches? Your diesel is better than my GAS car because it burns slightly less fuel at a sacrifice of driving enjoyment?

And don't bring your 80hp Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion to a discussion about dream vehicles. A man, you are not. Has that BlueMotion's efficiency been privately tested? BY AN AMERICAN? I stress for an American test because apparently, yall have got some corrupt corporations over there that'll morph specs to the public to push products...*cough* BBC...*cough*...


I'm a sports-car enthusiast. I don't want to talk mpg or lpg efficiency anymore.

Why are you such an angry little twat? You really ought to do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop posting here.

nota
09-18-2007, 08:04 PM
Don't turn into a sissy.

Evidently it only takes a sissy to expose your specious claims

And since you wanna play games, one of THOSE is less terrible than THIS diesel...http://www.bandag.com/download/ImagesLogos/dumptruck.jpg
Huh?

Well What, what does this dumptruck whatnot have to do with QUARTER MILE times which is what you were on about, eh what?

Or should that be What?

Whatever :rolleyes:

First of all, I don't f*ck with AU or their list prices so don't ask me to search for that.
I merely responded to your LITERAL claim, which is this:

"For every diesel you name with decent specs, I can name a cheaper and cleaner GAS powered vehicle with better specs."

So I took up your invitation and named a range of vehicles. Your only repsonse is to quickly capitulate to your own challenge.
Or can you cite a comparable US petrol sedan that delivers 40 US-mpg? (combined cycle aka city-hwy)

Secondly, you throwin' all this foreign lingo at me that I'm not understanding. As an American, I was taught to communicate clearly. What is this mono-LPG?
Let me dumb it down for those special-case "I'm not understanding" Americans like you.

Mono-LPG is a single-use fuel system that solely uses LPG, a-la mono. And gosh, a dual-fuel system can run on two fuels
LPG stands for liquid petroleum gas - which IS a gas, unlike your Duh-merican 'gas' - which turns out to be a liquid!

So much for your vaunted American teachings ..

Because, in the words of one fine American ... What we have here is a faylyahh to cuhhmoonicayt!

(apologies to Paul Newman;) )

And what are those cars? We don't get those...they don't exist. I can't verify what you're talking about...
Uh-oh, here comes the typical Not Invented Here syndrome. Well my dopey buckaroo these cars DO exist. And btw the world extends beyond your own personal limitations, even if you are too myopic to realise it.

And don't bring your 80hp Volkswagen Polo BlueMotion to a discussion about dream vehicles. A man, you are not. Has that BlueMotion's efficiency been privately tested? BY AN AMERICAN? I stress for an American test because apparently, yall have got some corrupt corporations over there that'll morph specs to the public to push products...*cough* BBC...*cough*...

For yea verily, in the words of Winston Churchill:

You can trust the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried every other alternative

The_Canuck
09-18-2007, 08:09 PM
A modified 5-speed 1987 Mustang GT and a 2006 Lexus IS 250.
You realize those are arguably 'sports cars', however I see your perpective on diesels.

But, what is the point in having any high performance road car? Apart from a sports car which can be argued, fun to drive...

and when neither of those cars are considered sports cars they really have no signifigant 'fun to drive' factor over a diesel.

henk4
09-18-2007, 09:02 PM
You realize those are arguably 'sports cars', however I see your perpective on diesels.


Sports cars: Audi R10, Peugeot 908:)

The_Canuck
09-18-2007, 09:20 PM
There you go, diesels can be sports cars :D

MRR
09-30-2007, 03:27 PM
There you go, diesels can be sports cars :D

Absolutely!! I hope BMW will be shipping its fantastic 3.0 liter twin turbo diesel in the 335d, 535d, and X3 3.0sd to North America. The 3.0 liter gas 335i produces only 15 more hp than the diesel but the diesel produces around 410 lb-ft of torque (110 lb-ft more than the gas)! Only downside is it is a bit heavier but fuel economy and torque more than makes up for a few extra pounds.

my porsche
09-30-2007, 06:32 PM
<3 Diesels.