Why are people buying expensive diesels?
Discussion
St John Smythe said:
yonex said:
daemon said:
Queue ridicule from Yonex....
The only thing to ridicule is how the topic has highlighted that all diesel owners are desperate for their car choice to be accepted by everyone, it's very odd. I am sure the aerodynamics of the 5 Series is good enough (that is what we are really talking about) but to say it requires 'little effort' is mis-leading. There must be hundreds of them out there with this simple map and de-restriction, and of course nothing bad will happen? 
In the thrice weekly anti-diesel threads that have been going on the 600+ weeks that I've been here, I don't ever recall a diesel owner telling anyone they're wrong for buying a petrol, it's always been the other way round. I don't ever recall a diesel owner criticising the choice of others, unlike the overwhelming case t'other way round.
The vast majority of diesel owners on here do of course own a petrol car too and have been able to appreciate both types, unlike the victims-of-marketing who believe they're not a petrolhead unless they're showing their "hardcore" credentials.
However things have changed. Unlike say, 10 years ago it wasn't possible, without spending quite a bit of money, to buy a petrol car that either didn't drink like a fish or couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.
Technology has brought us modern turbo petrols that have the nice torque characteristics that some of us like, without refueling twice a week.
We won't have cars doing 50mpg any more (which I'll miss, and makes me think 'the buggers have won'), but hopefully they won't be doing 25 mpg average either.
So yes, things will/have changed, but only thanks to technology.
Muzzer79 said:
Why not in £50k+ cars?
A diesel isn't a poorer option in all cases.
It's an engine - it offers decent performance and, to the layman, is almost indistinguishable from a petrol.
Show me a guy with an M6 and I'll show you another guy with a 640d who says it's real-world as quick but does 40mpg.
It may not sound as good or rev as high, but some people don't care about that as much as practical considerations.
I find it odd that so many people perceive diesels as a blatantly worse option when they're simply different, not worse.
I haven't driven the M6, but I had driven the 650i before buying my 640d. I didn't feel that much of a difference on normal roads/normal driving, and of course the M-sport trim is the m-sport trim regardless of what engine it hasA diesel isn't a poorer option in all cases.
It's an engine - it offers decent performance and, to the layman, is almost indistinguishable from a petrol.
Show me a guy with an M6 and I'll show you another guy with a 640d who says it's real-world as quick but does 40mpg.
It may not sound as good or rev as high, but some people don't care about that as much as practical considerations.
I find it odd that so many people perceive diesels as a blatantly worse option when they're simply different, not worse.
heebeegeetee said:
St John Smythe said:
yonex said:
daemon said:
Queue ridicule from Yonex....
The only thing to ridicule is how the topic has highlighted that all diesel owners are desperate for their car choice to be accepted by everyone, it's very odd. I am sure the aerodynamics of the 5 Series is good enough (that is what we are really talking about) but to say it requires 'little effort' is mis-leading. There must be hundreds of them out there with this simple map and de-restriction, and of course nothing bad will happen? In the thrice weekly anti-diesel threads that have been going on the 600+ weeks that I've been here, I don't ever recall a diesel owner telling anyone they're wrong for buying a petrol, it's always been the other way round. I don't ever recall a diesel owner criticising the choice of others, unlike the overwhelming case t'other way round.
The vast majority of diesel owners on here do of course own a petrol car too and have been able to appreciate both types, unlike the victims-of-marketing who believe they're not a petrolhead unless they're showing their "hardcore" credentials.
However things have changed. Unlike say, 10 years ago it wasn't possible, without spending quite a bit of money, to buy a petrol car that either didn't drink like a fish or couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.
Technology has brought us modern turbo petrols that have the nice torque characteristics that some of us like, without refueling twice a week.
We won't have cars doing 50mpg any more (which I'll miss, and makes me think 'the buggers have won'), but hopefully they won't be doing 25 mpg average either.
So yes, things will/have changed, but only thanks to technology.
Great post!
ORD said:
300bhp, 2,000kg and 0-60 in 5 seconds? I think you would be surprised by how far out that is.
Torque might help you guess at performance if you know the revs, but if you know the revs, you know the power. Torque is useful for calculating power. It is power that matters.
Yes I would be surprised and would also be calling trading standards as the manufacturers published 0-62mph figure for my car is 5.1 secs. Torque might help you guess at performance if you know the revs, but if you know the revs, you know the power. Torque is useful for calculating power. It is power that matters.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread it is wrong to disregard torque. Horsepower is a function of torque. You need to consider both figures as a guide to performance. The bigger question is the relevance of peak values as it's much more helpful to see a dyno graph to understand where and for how long the peak is attained.
Funny thread this. This title is a question - why do people buy expensive diesels. People are explaining their decision to choose a diesel and the response is to suggest we are desperate for validation?
I know why I chose this car. I did not make a mistake - it's simply that there was no direct petrol alternative that was objectively better
St John Smythe said:
Monkeylegend said:
daemon said:
St John Smythe said:
yonex said:
daemon said:
Queue ridicule from Yonex....
The only thing to ridicule is how the topic has highlighted that all diesel owners are desperate for their car choice to be accepted by everyone, it's very odd. I am sure the aerodynamics of the 5 Series is good enough (that is what we are really talking about) but to say it requires 'little effort' is mis-leading. There must be hundreds of them out there with this simple map and de-restriction, and of course nothing bad will happen? I know that will be a bit difficult for those few who like beat and ridicule the "opposition" into submission to comprehend.
If diesel cars are legislated off the road, I will happily drive mine until then, and then happily buy a petrol of whatever alternatives are available at the time.
Keep it up chaps, nothing you can say is having any effect whatsoever in terms of getting me to change my mind re diesel and presumably many others. You might as well waste your breath and time on some other childish disagreement.
It is good entertainment though
Which leads me onto the fact that all you diesel haters ironically display a lot of the characteristics of the engines you hate so much,very noisy, lots of talk, your minds are like a diesel power band, very narrow, you produce a lot of toxic s
t, and you run out of puff after a couple of sentences, same old stuart-b said:
Nope, sorry. You aren't producing that amount of power and torque from 1200 rpm. You have that power for at maximum 1500 rpm. BMW produce the 3 liter N45T which standard is 340 bhp, 370 lb/ft offically, but actually closer to 355-370 bhp and 410+ lb/ft as an average dyno value of other people's engines. Stage 1 without even trying is 410/460. Burger motorsports have 550 bhp on a completely standard engine, except for the upgrade of the in tank fuel pump. The gearbox is good for 700nm torque no sweat.
Upgraded internals on the Mitsubishi turbos sees a huge increase in power until redline, doesn't tail off at all. 5000 rpm range of torque and power. No matter how hard you try, the 535d won't see which way it went.
I have an Audi Bitdi not a 535d. The torque does not drop off massively past peak and its fairly strong all the way to 4500rpmUpgraded internals on the Mitsubishi turbos sees a huge increase in power until redline, doesn't tail off at all. 5000 rpm range of torque and power. No matter how hard you try, the 535d won't see which way it went.
Quoting remapped power levels against stock is a poor comparison. I ran an N54 335i with a piggy back for 5 years so am quite aware of the potential for tuning to squeak more out of any engine including my current diesel.
The 335i is a great car, but I wanted something bigger and more comfortable and there was no petrol alternative. In day to day driving the Audi is quicker than the BMW and to me feels more like a big wafty NA V8 than a diesel.
Elysium said:
stuart-b said:
Nope, sorry. You aren't producing that amount of power and torque from 1200 rpm. You have that power for at maximum 1500 rpm. BMW produce the 3 liter N45T which standard is 340 bhp, 370 lb/ft offically, but actually closer to 355-370 bhp and 410+ lb/ft as an average dyno value of other people's engines. Stage 1 without even trying is 410/460. Burger motorsports have 550 bhp on a completely standard engine, except for the upgrade of the in tank fuel pump. The gearbox is good for 700nm torque no sweat.
Upgraded internals on the Mitsubishi turbos sees a huge increase in power until redline, doesn't tail off at all. 5000 rpm range of torque and power. No matter how hard you try, the 535d won't see which way it went.
I have an Audi Bitdi not a 535d. The torque does not drop off massively past peak and its fairly strong all the way to 4500rpmUpgraded internals on the Mitsubishi turbos sees a huge increase in power until redline, doesn't tail off at all. 5000 rpm range of torque and power. No matter how hard you try, the 535d won't see which way it went.
Fastdruid said:
Elysium said:
stuart-b said:
Nope, sorry. You aren't producing that amount of power and torque from 1200 rpm. You have that power for at maximum 1500 rpm. BMW produce the 3 liter N45T which standard is 340 bhp, 370 lb/ft offically, but actually closer to 355-370 bhp and 410+ lb/ft as an average dyno value of other people's engines. Stage 1 without even trying is 410/460. Burger motorsports have 550 bhp on a completely standard engine, except for the upgrade of the in tank fuel pump. The gearbox is good for 700nm torque no sweat.
Upgraded internals on the Mitsubishi turbos sees a huge increase in power until redline, doesn't tail off at all. 5000 rpm range of torque and power. No matter how hard you try, the 535d won't see which way it went.
I have an Audi Bitdi not a 535d. The torque does not drop off massively past peak and its fairly strong all the way to 4500rpmUpgraded internals on the Mitsubishi turbos sees a huge increase in power until redline, doesn't tail off at all. 5000 rpm range of torque and power. No matter how hard you try, the 535d won't see which way it went.
Apologies for doubting the 0-62 time. I can see it with that power curve.
My point about torque being irrelevant is that you only need to see the power curve. If you have both torque and power on a graph, you can ignore the torque and just see what power is being produced over the rev range. That tells you how fast it will be. That diesel engine will make for a fast car because it basically has the power curve of a powerful turbo petrol engine, just shifted a bit to the left.
Fastdruid said:
Really? Looks like it does to me. Impressively wide for a diesel but still only 1350rpm wide.
The dyno graphs I have seen are a bit wider than that, showing peak torque from 1750 to 2500rpm. That said, the one you linked to still shows 550nm at 4500rpm. Whilst it's below peak that's still a lot of twisting force.Biggest issue with this car is actually gearbox response times and mapping as it occasionally kicks down and drops you out of the peak. After a while you learn that you will be quicker on part throttle keeping the revs low and rising he wave of torque.
Strangely it actually adds a bit of character to the car.
ORD said:
My point about torque being irrelevant is that you only need to see the power curve. If you have both torque and power on a graph, you can ignore the torque and just see what power is being produced over the rev range. That tells you how fast it will be. That diesel engine will make for a fast car because it basically has the power curve of a powerful turbo petrol engine, just shifted a bit to the left.
This is where the 8 speed box saves the day as it keeps shifting to allow the engine speed to remain in the power band. I don't like autos much but it would not work as well with a 6 speed manual.
scherzkeks said:
Your own barge has that covered. But I understand.
You don't though, I told you...deliveries are the way forward. As for cars you have poor references...
Mercedes C350 Touring
Audi S3 Sportback
Ford Probe GT
Infiniti G35 coupe
Buick Regal
Volvo 850
Mercedes SLK
Audi S4 Avant
Therefore troll.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 September 15:28
Peak figures dont tell you a huge amount, I agree. It's about the power curve, and I suppose torque can help you guess at the power curve.
Peak torque is a particularly silly figure for cars (like mine) that dont have an artificial torque plateau but just a rev range over which torque is high but not flat.
Peak torque is a particularly silly figure for cars (like mine) that dont have an artificial torque plateau but just a rev range over which torque is high but not flat.
ORD said:
Peak figures dont tell you a huge amount, I agree. It's about the power curve, and I suppose torque can help you guess at the power curve.
Peak torque is a particularly silly figure for cars (like mine) that dont have an artificial torque plateau but just a rev range over which torque is high but not flat.
For NA petrol cars the power curve tells you most things. Generally speaking you use the gears to keep the revs high as much as possible to access the power.Peak torque is a particularly silly figure for cars (like mine) that dont have an artificial torque plateau but just a rev range over which torque is high but not flat.
The torque curve is a bit more interesting with forced induction (petrol or diesel), but where it really helps is in gear acceleration.
The curve for my car shows a great lump of turning force available at low revs. Which suits on road driving where you need to accelerate from a cruise and don't necessarily want the engine screaming at the redline. I recall that the in gear times for the e90 335d were faster than any one 3 series car including the m3. That's torque.
Elysium said:
ORD said:
Peak figures dont tell you a huge amount, I agree. It's about the power curve, and I suppose torque can help you guess at the power curve.
Peak torque is a particularly silly figure for cars (like mine) that dont have an artificial torque plateau but just a rev range over which torque is high but not flat.
For NA petrol cars the power curve tells you most things. Generally speaking you use the gears to keep the revs high as much as possible to access the power.Peak torque is a particularly silly figure for cars (like mine) that dont have an artificial torque plateau but just a rev range over which torque is high but not flat.
The torque curve is a bit more interesting with forced induction (petrol or diesel), but where it really helps is in gear acceleration.
The curve for my car shows a great lump of turning force available at low revs. Which suits on road driving where you need to accelerate from a cruise and don't necessarily want the engine screaming at the redline. I recall that the in gear times for the e90 335d were faster than any one 3 series car including the m3. That's torque.
Also, why not have the engine near the redline? If you want maximum acceleration, put the engine in its power band. It is not harder to accelerate in 3rd gear than 5th. In an auto, it's completely irrelevant where the power band is, as you can just press the accelerator and let the ECU decide what gear is best.
ORD said:
Nope. That's power at low to middling revs. Engine torque does not make cars accelerate.
Also, why not have the engine near the redline? If you want maximum acceleration, put the engine in its power band. It is not harder to accelerate in 3rd gear than 5th. In an auto, it's completely irrelevant where the power band is, as you can just press the accelerator and let the ECU decide what gear is best.
Torque and power are not separate things they are mathematically related. HP is simply torque/second. Technically this means it is a less direct measure of acceleration than torque, because it is a derivative whereas torque is the rotational force itself.Also, why not have the engine near the redline? If you want maximum acceleration, put the engine in its power band. It is not harder to accelerate in 3rd gear than 5th. In an auto, it's completely irrelevant where the power band is, as you can just press the accelerator and let the ECU decide what gear is best.
The key thing is that it is better to make torque at high revs because gearing can be used to transmit this more effectively. (This means high HP)
The disadvantage of diesels is that the torque comes to low and not for long enough. So you can't use gearing effectively. The modern way around this is to generate levels of torque so enormous that is cancels out this disadvantage.
The flip side is that these cars also give you a real kick in the small of the back when accelerating in higher gears. Of course you are right that you can simply drop a couple of cogs in something like an m3 and get back in the race, but people don't drive like that. They tend to waft around and not rev their cars hard because they want to save fuel.
This characteristic is the main reason why many people say that they prefer diesel engines. I don't personally, but I understand where they are coming from.
Edited by Elysium on Wednesday 23 September 16:14
All true about the average motorist. But the average motorist isn't really worth listening to about cars.
If someone can't change down to be in the power band, he or she probably doesn't have much of an interest in cars or driving.
You also won't be saving any fuel if the engine is under heavy load. Revs don't matter as much as load, as far as I know.
If someone can't change down to be in the power band, he or she probably doesn't have much of an interest in cars or driving.
You also won't be saving any fuel if the engine is under heavy load. Revs don't matter as much as load, as far as I know.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff