RE: VW's R brand: we're going for diesel and 4WD

[Vladimir]

A sports car is an open top, two seater and imo, has to be rwd. Of course this includes many fairly modest performance cars but it also includes some bonkers quick cars. Top speed is utterly irrelevant.

If you fail to realise that the Radical and Ariel are sports cars then maybe its you that needs go go back to car primary school?

[plfrench]

Now, I know this is controversial, but would there be any chance of putting this thread vaguely back on topic rather than waiting to see whether Vladimir or cmoose stops bhing first

I thought the issue of VW looking to Diesel for the future and BMW appearing to favour petrol was quite interesting. I'll requote myself from earlier in the thread, as it was lost amongst the usual noise...

plfrench said:

Just had a quick google for Euro 6 emissions. I can see where BMW are coming from if they are expecting petrol to become more popular than Diesel. Euro 6 is due to come into force 1st September 2014. It would appear there is a high level of concern over NOx and particulates, for example, there is a reduction in the NOx limit for Diesels from 180mg/km (Euro 5) to 80mg/kg (Euro 6). Bearing in mind that the Euro 3 level which was allowed back in 2000 was 500mg/kg, that would appear to be a big drop. As always with development of a product, the initial performance improvements are the easiest, it becomes exponentially harder as you approach zero.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment...

I wonder how VW are intending to overcome this in the future without significant development...

Any thoughts around this? If not, then it's as you were

[Vladimir]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

By leaping in to shout from the rooftops, you failed to realise that my comments were directed at RW, not you. That's another keyboard warrior trait. Always assume everyone is talking to yourself.

For the slower of the sports car range, a mk3 MR2 knocks spots of an MX5 anyway. With the 190bhp engine from the Celica, it would have been a proper Elise killer.

[Rich_W]

plfrench said:

...I wonder how VW are intending to overcome this in the future without significant development...

Any thoughts around this? If not, then it's as you were

TBH, they "probably" have decided that this range of R Tdis will be made + sold out before the Euro6 legislation comes in. Then they will release a press statement about how the "future is petrol turbo"

[k15tox]

Vladimir said:

By leaping in to shout from the rooftops, you failed to realise that my comments were directed at RW, not you. That's another keyboard warrior trait. Always assume everyone is talking to yourself.

For the slower of the sports car range, a mk3 MR2 knocks spots of an MX5 anyway. With the 190bhp engine from the Celica, it would have been a proper Elise killer.

As stated in a prev thread, I'll never know why trd didn't make an official '190' model with a lsd, instead putting in a fwd coupe?

On a prev ph run I spoke to a guy with a 3.0 camry engine in one. Was quite a car.

[bodhi]

Vladimir said:

So two trolls step in and have a go. One that doesn't appear to even own a car, one with two ancient BMs, both barely able to keep up with a GTi. Both your posting histories speak volumes.

Jog on.

Edited by Vladimir on Wednesday 30th November 07:36

Find me a GTI that will get to 60 in 5.9 like the one autocar figured. Then I'll find you a bear that craps in the toilet. I mean in all honesty, im struggling to see the advance in a 335d over an "ancient" 328i, given the performance until you're doing silly speeds is very similar, and the economy out the dag dag isnt much better either. Plus the ancient one sounds FAR better and is also a better steer. You own up to having paid 19k, I paid 1500. Its also doing 600 miles a week without too much of a sweat. So what was your point?

[bodhi]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't reduce driving to numbers and figures and mp to the g's. Was beginning to think I was on the wrong website. Sorry, trolling the wrong website. Apparently.

[Vladimir]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I know the real reason, you know the real reason but you'd never, ever admit it. My wifes gran also had one for two years. I drove it many times.

A 190ish bhp heavy BM doing
0-60 in 5.9s? You honestly believe that? The 328i is a fairly decent car but fast it is not. That figure is infamous for being utter bs.

KI5 - seen that MR2. Very cool!

Edited by Vladimir on Thursday 1st December 07:37

Edited by Vladimir on Thursday 1st December 07:39

[anonymous-user]

80sboy said:

Okay, a few of them may be "performance cars" rather than sports cars but they exist for a VERY similar purpose. What is the Audi TT if it's not a sports car??? Whether it is actually any good it doesn't make a difference. The diesel version is apparently as quick as the 2.0t petrol in a straight line and around the bends.

So it wasn't a joke... Are you decent in real life or are you really such a rude ahole?

Edited by 80sboy on Tuesday 29th November 17:59

I own a TT and it drives much better than people give it credit for, perhaps because of hangups from the mk1's awful handling but it still isn't a sports car.

Out of interest though, why would the diesel be as quick as the petrol? I'll be honest, I didn't even consider it when I bought mine so haven't driven the diesel but I can't see how a 167hp engine in a heavier car can be as quick as a 208hp engine in a lighter car.

[80sboy]

sebdangerfield said:

80sboy said:

Okay, a few of them may be "performance cars" rather than sports cars but they exist for a VERY similar purpose. What is the Audi TT if it's not a sports car??? Whether it is actually any good it doesn't make a difference. The diesel version is apparently as quick as the 2.0t petrol in a straight line and around the bends.

So it wasn't a joke... Are you decent in real life or are you really such a rude ahole?

Edited by 80sboy on Tuesday 29th November 17:59

I own a TT and it drives much better than people give it credit for, perhaps because of hangups from the mk1's awful handling but it still isn't a sports car.

Out of interest though, why would the diesel be as quick as the petrol? I'll be honest, I didn't even consider it when I bought mine so haven't driven the diesel but I can't see how a 167hp engine in a heavier car can be as quick as a 208hp engine in a lighter car.

I think that many on here are very specific when defining a "sports car". Upon seeing a TT on the road, I'd describe it as nothing other than a sports car.

As for the TT TDI being as quick as the pertrol car, maybe I'm wrong. I read this in an article a while back...

[otolith]

sebdangerfield said:

I can't see how a 167hp engine in a heavier car can be as quick as a 208hp engine in a lighter car.

The traditional method is to choose a speed and gear that works for the diesel and doesn't work for the petrol.

[anonymous-user]

80sboy said:

sebdangerfield said:

80sboy said:

Okay, a few of them may be "performance cars" rather than sports cars but they exist for a VERY similar purpose. What is the Audi TT if it's not a sports car??? Whether it is actually any good it doesn't make a difference. The diesel version is apparently as quick as the 2.0t petrol in a straight line and around the bends.

So it wasn't a joke... Are you decent in real life or are you really such a rude ahole?

Edited by 80sboy on Tuesday 29th November 17:59

I own a TT and it drives much better than people give it credit for, perhaps because of hangups from the mk1's awful handling but it still isn't a sports car.

Out of interest though, why would the diesel be as quick as the petrol? I'll be honest, I didn't even consider it when I bought mine so haven't driven the diesel but I can't see how a 167hp engine in a heavier car can be as quick as a 208hp engine in a lighter car.

I think that many on here are very specific when defining a "sports car". Upon seeing a TT on the road, I'd describe it as nothing other than a sports car.

As for the TT TDI being as quick as the pertrol car, maybe I'm wrong. I read this in an article a while back...

I see where you're coming from. I'd define a sports car as something more direct and sharp, taking nothing away from the TT as it really is far better than it gets credit for, financially as well as dynamically. Its good but not quite got that responsiveness.

I think the article was wrong. Parkers has 0-60 for mine as 5.4 seconds and the diesel as 7.3. I appreciate 0-60 is irrelevant but they also both have the same torque figure so doubt the heavier diesel will catch up after 60 and the petrol develops the torque lower down than the diesel. I think I've bough a hybrid!

[10 Pence Short]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You mean when the diesel is flat out and the petrol isn't. Or are you going to keep the diesel below 2000rpm?

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But they both have the same amount, 258 lb-ft. In fact, the petrol has its peak earlier and for longer through the rev range than the diesel.

[RobCrezz]

Vladimir said:

Some are -R500/400/300, mad Westies, the top end Elises and a fair few others I can think of.

Doesnt make it the "sports car" definition. Its just a very fast sports car!

[plfrench]

sebdangerfield said:

But they both have the same amount, 258 lb-ft. In fact, the petrol has its peak earlier and for longer through the rev range than the diesel.

I had a 211ps TT the other day as a courtesy car whilst mine was in for a service. There is no way on earth that the Diesel version is anywhere near as quick no matter what speed / gear / revs you are talking. I was quite surprised at how much 'go' the petrol TT had. It was admittedly damp on the roads when I had it, but it wouldn't take full throttle in 2nd at around 55-60mph in a straight line (the car had done 8,800 miles, but the tyres were still fine). I've driven the A3 with the 170ps Diesel, and although it is a little bit heavier than the TT, was not even in the same league compared to the TT petrol.

The peak power for the petrol is 211ps @4300-6000rpm vs Diesel 170ps @ 4200rpm.
The peak torque for the petrol is 350Nm @ 1600-4200rpm vs Diesel 350Nm @ 1750-2500rpm.

As you can see the petrol comfortably has things covered from all angles, and this translates through to real-world performance. I think your Diesel performance assumptions might have gone one step too far this time cmoose

Edited by plfrench on Thursday 1st December 18:07

Edited by plfrench on Thursday 1st December 18:08

[Vladimir]

I have owned a 150PS 235lbs-ft diesel (Astra 1.9CDTi) weighing about 1400kgs.
I have owned a 240PS 235lbs-ft petrol (mk4 Golf R32) weighing a shade under 1500kgs.

The R32 was comfortably quicker at almost all revs (the Astra had a tiny power band, the R32 had a massive one) BUT the Astra was quicker than it should have been for a 150bhp car.

As I have said many times before, these sporty diesel DO punch above their weight considering their power/weight ratios.

My BM is only a wee bit more than the Golf on bhp/tonne yes it is MUCH quicker. In fact it's only 170bhp/tonne yet will get to 100 in around 13.3-13.8s (depending on where you look). Look at a similar power/weight ratio petrol and it will be a lot slower. Why? The torque, so much scoffed at as irrelevant by the PH ill-educated, is the reason.

The diesel TT will be way slower overall BUT it'll be quicker than it's bhp figures suggest.

Back to the OP - why are so many passing snide, uninformed comments when they:

1) Can't and will never be able to afford a diesel Golf R
2) Will never "get" diesels, whatever some of them can do.
3) Have nothing useful to say.

The "R" brand is for fast but very comfortable and high spec VWs. It's not some mega racing brand. So IMO a really good and quick diesel could suit the brand if executed properly.

Hell even BMWs M Division gave diesel some serious consideration.

I suggest that the number of vaguely informed and useful posts makes up less than 5% of this entire thread.

How unusual.

[Rich_W]

Vladimir said:

...
My BM is only a wee bit more than the Golf on bhp/tonne yes it is MUCH quicker. In fact it's only 170bhp/tonne yet will get to 100 in around 13.3-13.8s (depending on where you look). Look at a similar power/weight ratio petrol and it will be a lot slower. Why? The torque, so much scoffed at as irrelevant by the PH ill-educated, is the reason.
...

You are NOT comparing LIKE for LIKE though. ANY car Diesel or Petrol gives good TORQUE when you strap a Turbocharger to it! Your BMW is a 335 TURBO Diesel. The R32 was a NA Petrol. What did you think the difference would be? Needless to say TURBOCHARGERS make cars feel faster.

But take a 335i and it will be faster than the 335D.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bsn1pn1QBI

Case closed

[bodhi]

Vladimir said:

I know the real reason, you know the real reason but you'd never, ever admit it. My wifes gran also had one for two years. I drove it many times.

A 190ish bhp heavy BM doing
0-60 in 5.9s? You honestly believe that? The 328i is a fairly decent car but fast it is not. That figure is infamous for being utter bs.

KI5 - seen that MR2. Very cool!

Edited by Vladimir on Thursday 1st December 07:37

Edited by Vladimir on Thursday 1st December 07:39

I do believe that figure actually. The 328i appears to be impeccably geared, hitting 62 in 2nd. Handy for sprinting that. Another ph'er claims to have got one there in 5.7 at Santa pod, and carfolio lists it at 6.3, so doesnt seem too unbelievable to me. Anyway apparently im too poor to be posting on this matter, so I shall leave you to justify your purchase to the world.

Have fun xx

(if thats possible in a dag dag)

[Vladimir]

Rich_W said:

You are NOT comparing LIKE for LIKE though. ANY car Diesel or Petrol gives good TORQUE when you strap a Turbocharger to it! Your BMW is a 335 TURBO Diesel. The R32 was a NA Petrol. What did you think the difference would be? Needless to say TURBOCHARGERS make cars feel faster.

But take a 335i and it will be faster than the 335D.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bsn1pn1QBI

Case closed

The 335i has 30 more bhp. And is faster in a straight line but take it around a track and...



Case not quite closed. Firstly I compared a Golf R32 to an Astra diesel with the SAME torque NOT a 335d
Secondly turbos do not make the car FEEL faster, they make it actually GO faster.

But lets take an example of a TURBO PETROL car with the sameish 170bhp/tonne as a 335d - the Mini Cooper S Works (not the JCW). 0-60 in 7.6s, 0-100 in 18.0 seconds. MUCH slower.

And then lets look at the torque figures of a few well known petrols with TURBOS that have a similarish bhp to a 335d:

The Impreza STI - 300lbs-ft
The 335i - 295lbs-ft (this has TWO turbos)
The mk2 Focus RS - 324lbs-ft
Audi TTS - 258lbs-ft.

Not really all that similar to 428lbs-ft are they?

I'm more than happy to have a good bit of banter with fellow car nuts and I'm sure you and your mates are well into cars, but come on? Calling me thick (selective schooling, Mat Eng degree, co-run a nice little PR/comms company), making up BS about car figures, make up some laughable fact about ultimate performance being the ability to break 180, etc, etc.

Now what do YOU drive, what have you driven, why do you care?

I'm astounded that Bodhi and whoever else manage to run RWD cars that were fairly decent in their time (but now ancient and definitely not classics) but come ON - you can get something acceptable for £5k but sub £2k? Sorry but that's proper shed territory.

No it's not about money but it's a factor - two E36 328is "live" nearish me - both look like complete sheds. I see a very old MX5 sometimes in good nick - but no hiding the fact that the poor thing is very very tired.

For £2k I'd get a standard mk2/3 Golf/Civic/Focus or similar and try and keep it going. I would not even attempt to run a performance car. And I also wouldn't try and latch onto anyone that runs something a lot newer trying to justify my own life decisions.

Our cars (£21k apiece) are all paid for with funds to look after them properly. A drop in the ocean to many here but we love them to bits, enjoy them and have worked hard for them. I would not even consider haranguing someone with a £100k car in some lame attempt at pretending our cars are "better." Good on them - we hope to be there one day too, not slag them off.

It's a bit like living in a council flat in Barking and slagging off those in Canary Whart apartments on the waterfront. Pointless, sad, silly. However sharing an enthusiasm for your own house is no problem at all.

Now BACK TO THE OP - what sort of power/engine or did I miss it?