Is there such a thing as a desirable diesel?
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
There is only one reason to buy diesel, that is to save money.
You can argue all you like, but that is why diesels are offered.
Now, don't get me wrong, often there is no petrol equivalent to the diesel, so if you want the fastest then you go diesel, but in general so far all the reasons for people saying they 'bought the diesel because they prefer it' is not a diesel vs petrol argument but a forced induction vs NA argument.
I have owned a 335i and a 335d, the 335i was quicker, revved better, handled better and sounded so much better, but was more pricey to fill up.
FFRR TDV8 vs 5.0 SC, the 5.0 SC was quicker, revved better, handled better and sounded so much better, but was more pricey to fill up.
Alpina D5 vs B5, the B5 was quicker, revved better, handled better and sounded so much better, but was more pricey to fill up.
The old argument for 'it's all about the torque man' doesn't really count anymore, most high end petrol performance engines are turbo or supercharged, there is no lack of torque low down, which is where the big dervs used to win.
Don't care what people say, we all buy diesels to save money.
That's simply not true. Petrol BMWs have a nasty lag on the throttle and diesels don't - that was my reasoning - simple as that. Although you may have a point if we bring the M3 into the argument, for sure I test drove a 330i, 335i and 320i and they were utter cack, but the M3 had no lag issues at all and was lovely, but the running costs steered me away from it. So, in a way you're right, but I'm not sure that's what you meant?You can argue all you like, but that is why diesels are offered.
Now, don't get me wrong, often there is no petrol equivalent to the diesel, so if you want the fastest then you go diesel, but in general so far all the reasons for people saying they 'bought the diesel because they prefer it' is not a diesel vs petrol argument but a forced induction vs NA argument.
I have owned a 335i and a 335d, the 335i was quicker, revved better, handled better and sounded so much better, but was more pricey to fill up.
FFRR TDV8 vs 5.0 SC, the 5.0 SC was quicker, revved better, handled better and sounded so much better, but was more pricey to fill up.
Alpina D5 vs B5, the B5 was quicker, revved better, handled better and sounded so much better, but was more pricey to fill up.
The old argument for 'it's all about the torque man' doesn't really count anymore, most high end petrol performance engines are turbo or supercharged, there is no lack of torque low down, which is where the big dervs used to win.
Don't care what people say, we all buy diesels to save money.
Any time I'm searching for a car I eliminate diesel with the search filter, despite covering 30k. Couldn't be bothered with the hassle of a modern diesel out of warranty. I know any car can give bother but petrol seems a safer bet if/when things go wrong.
In saying that I do like older diesels, I have a 190d 2.5 auto. There's a certain charm with how it makes progress. I was a passenger recently in a 306 1.9 d turbo which also impressed me for a 20 year old car. If whoever bought it new had went for the 1.6 petrol I'd say it would be history by now.
In saying that I do like older diesels, I have a 190d 2.5 auto. There's a certain charm with how it makes progress. I was a passenger recently in a 306 1.9 d turbo which also impressed me for a 20 year old car. If whoever bought it new had went for the 1.6 petrol I'd say it would be history by now.
gizlaroc said:
WinstonWolf said:
As I said, you might, I didn't.
Sorry, you'll lose if you try to tell me what I think
You said the diesel is better for wafting passed lorries. Sorry, you'll lose if you try to tell me what I think
All I am saying is you are talking complete b
ks. The 4.0 twin turbo v8 petrol has 533ft lbs of torque and has 605bhp, your car has 627ft lbs of torque but only 380bhp, your car takes 30% longer to get to 60mph, and at that point it is all about BHP.
I am not saying you don't think your car is faster or more effortless, I am simply saying it isn't.
Edited by gizlaroc on Friday 14th October 22:49
We don't all buy diesels to save money, some of want low down grunt.
Jimmy Recard said:
DonkeyApple said:
You'd be buying a petrol V8 then, preferably with forced induction.
This is it. The petrol twin turbo V8 does just as well or better but costs more to buy and run.
irish boy said:
I was a passenger recently in a 306 1.9 d turbo which also impressed me for a 20 year old car. If whoever bought it new had went for the 1.6 petrol I'd say it would be history by now.
I had a Visa 11 (1.1 petrol) as a courtesy car and it was a total little sh*tbox, in comparison - no power at all, despite weighing less than a paper bag and a loose sloppy gearchange next to the diesel's obviously better and more solid set-up. 63mpg all day.
Traded it for a Scirocco GTI.
Some very strong opinions in this thread. Clearly feelings run high, often at the expense of spelling and grammar.
To the point of the Great Diesel Debate. Before I jumped ship, the Company car scheme to which I was committed was basically a choice of diesel or diesel, and my last three cars were thus powered by what is allegedly the fuel of Lucifer. Covering large mileages made me appreciate not only the economy, which was important as we had a fixed mileage rate for fuel reimbursement, but also the characteristics of a modern turbo diesel engine, the flat, fat torque curve providing plenty of in-gear acceleration for overtaking and making progress in the real world. When early retirement beckoned, I had the opportunity to buy my car (an almost new 2.0 VW Golf TDi) at an attractive discount, and reasoned that it would be foolish not to.
I've never regretted it. My longest round trip in a day has been from Hampshire to Hull and back, 525 miles at an average of 50mph and 70mpg, with enough fuel left in the tank when I got home for another 100 miles. The car covers long distances effortlessly.
My other car is a Honda S2000, and the two provide an interesting contrast - the Golf has 140BHP and torque stated at 236lbs/ft, while the Honda almost exactly reverses those figures, with 236BHP and (approximately) 140lbs/ft of torque. The rev range of the Golf is almost exactly half that of the Honda. For shorter runs on roads with corners I'll always reach for the Honda keys, although the Golf acquits itself well in any circumstance. But as I now pay for my own fuel, the Golf does most of the work. I rarely achieve less than 60mpg in everyday driving.
To the point of the Great Diesel Debate. Before I jumped ship, the Company car scheme to which I was committed was basically a choice of diesel or diesel, and my last three cars were thus powered by what is allegedly the fuel of Lucifer. Covering large mileages made me appreciate not only the economy, which was important as we had a fixed mileage rate for fuel reimbursement, but also the characteristics of a modern turbo diesel engine, the flat, fat torque curve providing plenty of in-gear acceleration for overtaking and making progress in the real world. When early retirement beckoned, I had the opportunity to buy my car (an almost new 2.0 VW Golf TDi) at an attractive discount, and reasoned that it would be foolish not to.
I've never regretted it. My longest round trip in a day has been from Hampshire to Hull and back, 525 miles at an average of 50mph and 70mpg, with enough fuel left in the tank when I got home for another 100 miles. The car covers long distances effortlessly.
My other car is a Honda S2000, and the two provide an interesting contrast - the Golf has 140BHP and torque stated at 236lbs/ft, while the Honda almost exactly reverses those figures, with 236BHP and (approximately) 140lbs/ft of torque. The rev range of the Golf is almost exactly half that of the Honda. For shorter runs on roads with corners I'll always reach for the Honda keys, although the Golf acquits itself well in any circumstance. But as I now pay for my own fuel, the Golf does most of the work. I rarely achieve less than 60mpg in everyday driving.
For our car, the diesel was most desirable
- Can't beat two turbos
- 285hp, 430 lb-ft torque
- Pulls very well, right up to 4500rpm
- Makes a nice, deep noise
Was also the pick of the bunch
- Xdrive48i engine is a very nice engine, 4.8l at 355hp seems very desirable, but scared off at sky high maintenance costs (CCV, Oil Leaks, Oil seal premature wear leading to white smoke). On top of this, often had much more factory options included due to high price of the car, therefore would have the really good options e.g. HUD, 4-zone climate etc.
- xDrive35i engine wasn't sold here
- 3.0si engine seemingly lethargic engine, wheezy in a SUV with not much pull due to low torque
- 3.0d engine not bad, but not as reliable as 3.0sd engine we have, as single turbo has lots of stress from the weight of the car, also doesn't pull as well.
Definitely, the 3.0sd engine was the pick of the bunch.
- Can't beat two turbos
- 285hp, 430 lb-ft torque
- Pulls very well, right up to 4500rpm
- Makes a nice, deep noise
Was also the pick of the bunch
- Xdrive48i engine is a very nice engine, 4.8l at 355hp seems very desirable, but scared off at sky high maintenance costs (CCV, Oil Leaks, Oil seal premature wear leading to white smoke). On top of this, often had much more factory options included due to high price of the car, therefore would have the really good options e.g. HUD, 4-zone climate etc.
- xDrive35i engine wasn't sold here
- 3.0si engine seemingly lethargic engine, wheezy in a SUV with not much pull due to low torque
- 3.0d engine not bad, but not as reliable as 3.0sd engine we have, as single turbo has lots of stress from the weight of the car, also doesn't pull as well.
Definitely, the 3.0sd engine was the pick of the bunch.
Me and my dad both have MK1 Focus's - both 1.8's except 1 is a diesel and 1 is a petrol. Both have similar power outputs, however my diesel feels much quicker - especially in gear. To drive they feel exactly the same, however my steering is a bit heavier - presumably due to wider wheels and heavier lump over it.
Personally I enjoy the low down grunt that the diesel offers, the lower revs at speed, the torque to pull itself up a hill in first. I don't however like the noise outside, inside they're both muted however you can definitely tell mine is a diesel. I also don't like the fact that mine is likely to go bang and cost me a fortune and his won't.
The economy for me is good but when you consider his will get 350-400 and mine does 500 there isn't really that much between the two.
I do think though if your car is for day to day use with the odd blast a diesel suits. If its a toy, or requires more spirited driving then a petrol is probably best.
Personally I enjoy the low down grunt that the diesel offers, the lower revs at speed, the torque to pull itself up a hill in first. I don't however like the noise outside, inside they're both muted however you can definitely tell mine is a diesel. I also don't like the fact that mine is likely to go bang and cost me a fortune and his won't.
The economy for me is good but when you consider his will get 350-400 and mine does 500 there isn't really that much between the two.
I do think though if your car is for day to day use with the odd blast a diesel suits. If its a toy, or requires more spirited driving then a petrol is probably best.
RobM77 said:
the M3 had no lag issues at all and was lovely, but the running costs steered me away from it. So, in a way you're right, but I'm not sure that's what you meant?
That is exactly what I meant. I bought a 535d, because I couldn't afford the Alpina B5 or M5 or the 550i even.
If I was offered an Alpina D5 or B5 Touring for free for 3 years with all fuel paid for I would go B5 every time, but when it is my money then I would probably bottle the B5 at the last minute and go D5.
As I said, it is to save money.
I don't agree on the diesel vs petrol lag, I had a 335d and then the 335i, the petrol had much less lag than the derv. Both were way behind the NA 330i though.
WinstonWolf said:
Jimmy Recard said:
DonkeyApple said:
You'd be buying a petrol V8 then, preferably with forced induction.
This is it. The petrol twin turbo V8 does just as well or better but costs more to buy and run.You are comparing a NA engine that needs working, and does bugger all until 3500rpm, to a forced induction that has almost all its torque available from 1500rpm or, the important bit and what you like about it, from its cruising speed.
That Forced Induction engine could be diesel or petrol.
I can assure you, the 4.0 twin turbo petrol version of your 4.2tdi twin turbo diesel car is even more effortless from 1500rpm through to 4500rpm where yours starts to tail off and then completely ballistic if you want to take it from 5000rpm through to 8000rpm.
The petrol can be as lazy as your diesel, or as manic as your Griff (well, maybe not quite that manic).
It may be worth trying one to see what I mean.
No you didn't. You bought it for the economy. Obviously it makes a better DD than a TVR due to the type of car it is but money no object you would prefer a big engined turbocharged petrol version.
Trying to convince yourself otherwise is just being silly. Petrol does everythibg better bar economy.
Trying to convince yourself otherwise is just being silly. Petrol does everythibg better bar economy.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff