The end of the world...

[Ferrer]

Indeed it is...in the markets where people are practically forced into diesels, it's one way to get genuine thrills back.

(...)

The only thing is...with the existence of the 123d, it's hard to justify a petrol that's slower but costs the same to run.

Disagree strongly.

No matter how good diesels are they can't get anywhere near a petrol engine driving enjoyment. It's as simple as that.

That doesn't meant they don't make sense or that they can't be good. It's just as far as the driving is concerned a petrol is better.

And I'd gladly trade some performance for a better driving experience.

[Kitdy]

Why do you think diesels are less enjoyable to drive than their gasoline counterparts Ferrer?

[Ferrer]

Why do you think diesels are less enjoyable to drive than their gasoline counterparts Ferrer?

Noise, revviness and smoothness.

The better the car is the more it is noticeable. When you are enjoying a brilliant drive in country road the diesel is a bit of a let down, no matter how fast it is. Also thrashing a diesel for some reason doesn't feel right.

In a diesel you don't drop a couple of gears and redline it just for fun. The diesel may be excellent but it feels like a bit of an appliance.

[Clivey]

Noise, revviness and smoothness.

The better the car is the more it is noticeable. When you are enjoying a brilliant drive in country road the diesel is a bit of a let down, no matter how fast it is. Also thrashing a diesel for some reason doesn't feel right.

In a diesel you don't drop a couple of gears and redline it just for fun. The diesel may be excellent but it feels like a bit of an appliance.

I do know what you mean, although I do still drop a couple of cogs and floor it for fun, but we've just established that the 4-pot 1-series petrols are nothing special anyway - so why pay more to run a 116i than a 123d?

If you offered me the choice of a 120i or a 123d, I'd choose the latter. I don't consider it "less good to drive" than a petrol - It's just different. Where a sporty petrol has horsepower at high revs, a sporty diesel has a great slug of torque all the way from just above idle to about 4k rpm. It's a bit like an American V8 in that way.

Even if they made a 2.0-litre NA 4-pot petrol with high specific output and a high redline (which they're not going to because of ridiculous "green" obsessions and emissions targets), the running costs would likely be prohibitive anyway. Standard 95-Octane petrol is about £1 per litre / £4.54 per Imperial gallon here at the moment - and it won't get any better.

And although it pains me greatly to say it, eventually Albert, you're going to have to give-up your ICE engine and manual gearbox anyway. Mainstream cars will probably all be powered by electric motors in the future - I predict that there will be niche sports cars with ICE engines for enthusiasts, but they'll be so expensive to tax and run that they'll be as irrelevant as a private jet to most people.

[Kitdy]

And although it pains me greatly to say it, eventually Albert, you're going to have to give-up your ICE engine and manual gearbox anyway. Mainstream cars will probably all be powered by electric motors in the future - I predict that there will be niche sports cars with ICE engines for enthusiasts, but they'll be so expensive to tax and run that they'll be as irrelevant as a private jet to most people.

It's not so bad - the performance car will not likely die - it will be reborn. There will also be plenty of old cars hanging around to drive - ones with internal combustion engines. The real tragedy is living in Europe as a car enthusiast where ownership costs are prohibitive. I can buy a 220 hp Genesis Coupe for $25k Canadian and pay half what you are paying for gas.

Keep on rockin' in the free world!

[cargirl1990]

It's not so bad - the performance car will not likely die - it will be reborn. There will also be plenty of old cars hanging around to drive - ones with internal combustion engines. The real tragedy is living in Europe as a car enthusiast where ownership costs are prohibitive. I can buy a 220 hp Genesis Coupe for $25k Canadian and pay half what you are paying for gas.

Keep on rockin' in the free world!

oh yeah, a Genesis coupe.

[wwgkd]

It's not so bad - the performance car will not likely die - it will be reborn. There will also be plenty of old cars hanging around to drive - ones with internal combustion engines. The real tragedy is living in Europe as a car enthusiast where ownership costs are prohibitive. I can buy a 220 hp Genesis Coupe for $25k Canadian and pay half what you are paying for gas.

Keep on rockin' in the free world!

Or come here and pay less.

Course with California passing that 35mpg average mandate and the rest of the country looking to be shamed into following it could suck. At least you get a free out if you run ethanol, but nothing from the factory is doing that in an exciting car, and there isn't much point (in this instance) to converting after the fact.

[Clivey]

Or come here and pay less.

Course with California passing that 35mpg average mandate and the rest of the country looking to be shamed into following it could suck. At least you get a free out if you run ethanol, but nothing from the factory is doing that in an exciting car, and there isn't much point (in this instance) to converting after the fact.

Is the 35mpg average across a manufacturer's range of cars, or does every car have to do 35mpg?

[Ferrer]

I do know what you mean, although I do still drop a couple of cogs and floor it for fun, but we've just established that the 4-pot 1-series petrols are nothing special anyway - so why pay more to run a 116i than a 123d?

If you offered me the choice of a 120i or a 123d, I'd choose the latter. I don't consider it "less good to drive" than a petrol - It's just different. Where a sporty petrol has horsepower at high revs, a sporty diesel has a great slug of torque all the way from just above idle to about 4k rpm. It's a bit like an American V8 in that way.

Even if they made a 2.0-litre NA 4-pot petrol with high specific output and a high redline (which they're not going to because of ridiculous "green" obsessions and emissions targets), the running costs would likely be prohibitive anyway. Standard 95-Octane petrol is about £1 per litre / £4.54 per Imperial gallon here at the moment - and it won't get any better.

And although it pains me greatly to say it, eventually Albert, you're going to have to give-up your ICE engine and manual gearbox anyway. Mainstream cars will probably all be powered by electric motors in the future - I predict that there will be niche sports cars with ICE engines for enthusiasts, but they'll be so expensive to tax and run that they'll be as irrelevant as a private jet to most people.

I disagree with diesels being better. You are concentrating only on performance. And yes diesels can be very fast indeed, but in my opinion there's much more than performance to a good engine.

Why would I take a 116i over a 123d? Well I can only assume that 123d feels the same as our car, just quite a lot faster. And despite the performance it'd always be a disappointment when pushing it. See the Jag XF, the 3.0 S must be as fast as our V8 with a much lower fule consumption, but which one would you rather have?

It seems to me that you are trying to see the matter rationally and objectively and here is where we disagree the most. I don't see a car as an object to go from A to B and occasionally to C. I want to enjoy my car. And therefore, as long as I can afford it, I don't care paying that little bit more if I can enjoy that car more than another, cheaper to run, one.

[Clivey]

I disagree with diesels being better. You are concentrating only on performance. And yes diesels can be very fast indeed, but in my opinion there's much more than performance to a good engine.

I totally agree with everything that I've highlighted in bold but I disagree that I'm concentrating only on performance. I too love petrol engines, as they give a unique kind of thrill when you can afford to & get the opportunity to enjoy them, however I find that a good diesel gives you an enjoyable driving experience too. - It just does it in a different way to most petrols. (low down muscle, like a slow-revving petrol V8)

Why would I take a 116i over a 123d? Well I can only assume that 123d feels the same as our car, just quite a lot faster. And despite the performance it'd always be a disappointment when pushing it. See the Jag XF, the 3.0 S must be as fast as our V8 with a much lower fule consumption, but which one would you rather have?

The 123d, being a sequential twin turbo unit, effectively eliminates the turbo lag that our cars suffer from...therefore it feels quite different to my car to drive. It DOES, as I've said countless times, feel like a slow-revving, torquey petrol engine without a spectacular top-end. In this way, it's a bit like an old-school muscle car rather than a sports car (think "Bullitt" and you'll be fine! )

Variable Twin Turbo technology takes the BMW four and straight six-cylinder diesel engines to unmatched levels of performance. It dual-stage design enables the engines to achieve performance figures that previously only larger eight-cylinder engines could reach. Emissions and fuel consumption, however, are impressively low.

Innovations such as common rail direct injection and exhaust gas turbo charging with variable turbine geometry have driven dramatic improvements in the performance of diesel engines.
The introduction of BMW's dual-stage turbocharging system, Variable Twin Turbo, represents another quantum leap in diesel engineering. This technology delivers a performance boost of 25 per cent, and enables instant responsiveness even at low engine speeds - as well as enormous reserves of power at higher revs.
The heart of the Variable Twin Turbo system comprises two turbochargers of different sizes. In contrast to the bi-turbo system, the two turbochargers do not operate parallel, but are activated at different points. Precisely coordinated, they run individually or together, increasing the pressure of the intake air to the optimum level. The greater pressure of the intake air enables a more effective combustion of the diesel fuel in the cylinder.
At lower engine speeds, the intake air passes through the inactive larger turbocharger into the active smaller turbocharger, which increases the air pressure. At medium engine speeds, the larger turbocharger becomes active, forcing air under pressure into the smaller unit, which increases the pressure still further. At higher engines speeds, the larger turbocharger alone forces air into the cylinders.
Despite these impressive dynamics, the fuel consumption of the Variable Twin Turbo diesel engine is exemplary low, according to EU standards. The standard diesel particle filter ensures that strict EU4 emissions standards are met.

However, I have to add that I chose the C4 1.6HDI (110) over the 1.6i16v (110) not just because of the better fuel economy, but because I feel that the diesel is a better engine. The petrol feels too underpowered for the weight of the car, whereas the diesel has the torque (once the turbo is spinning) to cope. It's also a bonus that I can gain 30BHP and 45lb/ft with a simple ECU remap.

Regarding the Jag XF 4.2V8 (I'd like to know this before I answer which model I prefer): Does it have paddle shifters / gearchange buttons on the back of the 'wheel? - I only like automatics that have a fully-functioning "manual" option with either paddle shifters or buttons on the 'wheel. - Otherwise, there's no point in having a keen engine because you can't extract it's full potential - you might as well just go for the smoothest/most torquey option.

The "S" model also brings a few tasty additions to the specification of the car (disregarding the engine) - And looks/specification wise, it's better IMO.

It seems to me that you are trying to see the matter rationally and objectively and here is where we disagree the most.

Not entirely, as I've said, I find that a good diesel can be more enjoyable to drive than an average petrol. It's just different, that's all.

I don't see a car as an object to go from A to B and occasionally to C. I want to enjoy my car.

Me too. It's just that a good diesel, in my opinion, doesn't preclude enjoyment.

And therefore, as long as I can afford it, I don't care paying that little bit more if I can enjoy that car more than another, cheaper to run, one.

The phrase in bold is key, I'm afraid.

Of course, almost all drivers would choose the best petrol engine over the best diesel...but when affordability takes away the choice of the best petrols, and I'm left with a good diesel versus an average petrol, I'll choose the good diesel.

[Ferrer]

Yes, the Jag has paddles for full manual control. Great car, but if it was a proper manual it'd be even better.

Of course, almost all drivers would choose the best petrol engine over the best diesel...but when affordability takes away the choice of the best petrols, and I'm left with a good diesel versus an average petrol, I'll choose the good diesel.

I think we'll disagree here forever...

[Clivey]

Yes, the Jag has paddles for full manual control. Great car, but if it was a proper manual it'd be even better.

Interesting...I was thinking that it was only the Supercharged 'SV8' and the 'R' that had paddles. The XF has now risen even further in my estimation.

In that case, I can answer your question:

I would prefer to own the 4.2 V8 over the 3.0D (ignoring the specification differences of the trim level). However, I would be more likely to buy the 3.0D because I am more likely to be able to afford it.

I think we'll disagree here forever...

...or perhaps until you drive a 123d?

I have to ask though Albert: Why did you buy a 118d if you dislike diesels so much? Did you test drive a petrol and the 118d first?

[Ferrer]

...or perhaps until you drive a 123d?

I have to ask though Albert: Why did you buy a 118d if you dislike diesels so much? Did you test drive a petrol and the 118d first?

We almost went for the 116i over the 118d. But doing 30.000km every year made us decide for the diesel. I only test drove the diesel though.

I now know that I don't one another one. Especially not in a car that drives as superbly as the 1er.

[Clivey]

We almost went for the 116i over the 118d. But doing 30.000km every year made us decide for the diesel. I only test drove the diesel though.

I now know that I don't one another one. Especially not in a car that drives as superbly as the 1er.

Well, if Spanish prices are proportional to those in the UK, you could have bought a 118i for less than the 118d (and perhaps have specced sports seats with the change?)...but the running costs would be quite different. It depends on whether you could afford to run the petrol.

Every review of the 116i that I've seen states that the 1.6 is a bit of a letdown, though.

[Ferrer]

Well, if Spanish prices are proportional to those in the UK, you could have bought a 118i for less than the 118d (and perhaps have specced sports seats with the change?)...but the running costs would be quite different. It depends on whether you could afford to run the petrol.

Every review of the 116i that I've seen states that the 1.6 is a bit of a letdown, though.

The problem is that with the BMW Select the diesel was cheaper because it has stronger residuials.

So it's cheaper to run and to buy as well...