RE: Diesel myths debunked

[Patrick Bateman]

Vladimir said:

You overtake lazily? Maybe learn to drive?

By lazy overtake I'm saying you may not have to bother dropping down gears in the diesel compared to the petrol.

[clockworks]

RichTBiscuit said:

What he said.

Without taking running costs into account, I've not met one person (who knows about cars) who would buy a diesel over a petrol.

I have 2 cars:

911 (964)
Fiat Qubo Diesel

I got forced into driving diesels by my employer's company car scheme. I was surprised at how good they were. When I took early retirement, and had to buy a small runabout, I decided on the little Fiat.
There were 2 engine choices - 1.4 petrol or 1.3 diesel. The diesel has slightly more power, but bags more torque. Real life performance is excellent for such a small engine in a relatively heavy car (1200kg). Not much fun on the dual carriageway (we don't have motorways in Cornwall), but great around the back lanes and twisty A roads.

I probably wouldn't consider a diesel in a "performance" car (maybe an exception for the BMW 335), but they make perfect sense for small cars in rural areas. Despite being driven hard, on short journeys, and having the aerodynamics of a house brick, I think that 49mpg is pretty good.

[Vladimir]

Patrick Bateman said:

By lazy overtake I'm saying you may not have to bother dropping down gears in the diesel compared to the petrol.

Except most good diesels are auto...

Edited by Vladimir on Friday 27th April 18:05

Edited by Vladimir on Friday 27th April 18:05

[V8 FOU]

RemyMartin said:

The only way I'd have a diesel powered vehicle would be

a) It was a HGV and it was running at least 650bhp
b) An old locomotive

Other than that....never.

Or my Ford F350 pickup with 450bhp and weighs 2.6ton? Not bad for a diesel....
Oh over 800ftlb of torque too.....

[blueg33]

Vladimir said:

Except may good diesels are auto...

And these figures suggest you aren't really concentrating...

0-xxx times mean less than 40-70 times, that's where I think oil burners have the edge

[Patrick Bateman]

Vladimir said:

Except may good diesels are auto...

And these figures suggest you aren't really concentrating...

Christ, did I say it was an absolute?

It's not difficult to understand that you tend to have to rev a petrol engine a fair bit more for an overtake.

I'm not including every single bloody example so give the 335d thing a rest for once.

[garypotter]

The people who make me chuckle are those who do less than 5k miles a year, small runs around town - shopping school trips and then buy a diesel tiddly hatchback.

Buy a petrol version as they would never benefit the rewards of mpg from a diesel.

Are owners of these little hatch back diesels still having problem with the exhaust co metre thingies?

[wst]

Froomee said:

k15tox said:

Diesels can be quick.

Maybe they will use a 335d and 640d mapped in the new film

As pointed out earlier, fuel is cheaper, but relative to the wage out there and the cost of living it's about proportional to the fuel prices here. And a 1 cent/litre fuel price rise is like a 1p/litre fuel price rise out there.

I'm all for diesels being more popular in the USA. If they use it all up then maybe the proper motion lotion will be sent back over here to saturate the market and push prices through the floor?

[Motorrad]

This thread is about the US not whatever you can buy in the UK. The diesel Golf available in the US as of 2011 when I lived there was a much lower spec than a standard GTi.

Don't move the goal posts, we're not (or should not) be discussing the merits of a diesel car in the UK but in the US. Forget any of this UK crap.

If this thread was in any way related to the UK then I agree a diesel car makes sense for a high volume, high mileage vehicle.

It isn't, we're talking about the land of the free where people still believe they can live like free human beings. I'll take some of that in 8 cylinder petrol format.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Paul_M3 said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

im not bothered about the economy, only been getting 18mpg out of the S3, its the engine dynamics of the oil burner i find very unpalatable, i would rather have the s3 (a 7.5/10 car) than a passat oil burner and a 911 GT3 RS for summer weekend hooning because after a week in the passat i would want to crash it to inject some character into it

give me an RS4 as a daily drive and ill happily take the GT3 for play time

Really? Honestly?

I swapped my modified e46 M3 for a 320d Auto and an Elise SC.

I think it's the best car decision I've ever made.
No matter how good the M3 was, my 25 mile journey to work was still completely dull 95% of the time.

Now it's still dull, but MUCH more relaxing as the 320d auto is such an easy, lazy car to drive.

i honestly would rather use public transport

[MarkRSi]

If they're that confident about diesels, they should stick a turbo V8 diesel in a Camero or Corvette

[gumsie]

blueg33 said:

doogz said:

And do they both have turbochargers?

tdi does, petrol doesn't, petrol gernerates more BHP and is in a lighter car)

There you go then. You have singlehandedly neutered your own argument.

[gumsie]

Devil2575 said:

gumsie said:

Did you see what you did there?
As for reasons not to, long before I was a petrol head, (and back when diesels were well clattery admittedly), I heard one and decided I NEVER wanted my car to sound like that. Petrol engines weren't hugely smooth back then either.

I don't get your point. Back in 1990 I saw a PC game and though it wasn't worth the money. That has no refelction on how good they are now.

Relative to contemporary petrol engines diesels are now a lot smoother. Smooth enough for it not be an issue for most of the non petrol head public.

You said relative to something in absolute terms. Double talk.

......However in absolute terms a decent modern diesel engine is relatively smooth

[Vladimir]

Patrick Bateman said:

Christ, did I say it was an absolute?

It's not difficult to understand that you tend to have to rev a petrol engine a fair bit more for an overtake.

I'm not including every single bloody example so give the 335d thing a rest for once.

The reason I use that example is because the 335i and 335d are so similar in output, size and both have a pair of blowers. The 335i is quicker to 60 and 100 yet it's not completely clear cut and demonstrates that torque IS important even though so called hardcore PHers try and spout a load of tosh about gearing to attempt to "prove" that it's irrelevant. Well clearly it isn't.

The Ashtray diesel we had (!) is another example - 150bhp but quicker 50-70 by some margin) than the more powerful AND lighter but torque lacking 170bhp petrol variant.

I completely understand why many don't like diesels - I don't like many of them either. But what your average "look at how cool I am bashing diesels; aren't I hardcore?" PH bore does is brand every single one dreadful and attempts to make out that their dronesome 1.8T/2.0/whatever boring 4 pot is superior to ANY diesel. What these vacuous goons have done is driven a crummy diesel (i.e. most four pots), decided they don't like them based on that experience then gone on and on and on about how they hate dervs.

We were forced, thanks to vandalism, to sell a much loved Golf R32. We had to buy an invisible car but wanted something that went okay - we bought a new 1.9CDTi 150 Astra estate which had just been released. I HATED it at first - pathetic power band, foul noise, etc. But once I learned to drive ONLY in that power band using super quick shifting, I realised that it was actually a pretty rapid car and with a fairly decent chassis, it could he hustled along a fun A or B road at quite a serious pace (almost comparable to the R32 on some roads - I used to note corner entry and exit speeds).

The same with a 535d - I drove the inlaws new one and wasn't too impressed. Until I found the sport gearbox setting, recalibrated my driving and then grinned; a lot.

Good diesels, of which there are very few, are fast, they sound perfectly decent (most diesel bashers have only heard a decent diesel on start up) and they go like the absolute clappers when pushed.

So the next complete muppet that claims all diesels are dreadful has to ask himself (for it is always a male with a fragile ego) this - is a sub 200bhp, FWD hatch/whatever based very closely on a shopping car REALLY more fun than a 300+bhp RWD car with a sorted chassis and more torque than an AM DBS?

If the answer is still yes, then I seriously question your PH credentials.

I love cars, always have done, have done plenty of extra driver training to back this up but CHOSE two diesels. Yet I still think a loon petrol would be great fun and am considering adding one to the driveway soonish, but don't feel the need to bash every petrol and like ALL types of car whether fuelled by petrol, diesel or fart gas.

Edited by Vladimir on Friday 27th April 19:05

[Lar]

Jeez, this is a tedious thread, but I'll add my opinion anyway.

I went from a diesel three series to a petrol (4-cylinder) 3 series, and felt the petrol car was gutless, the power was in an annoying place in the rev range for 80% of real world driving situations and the fuel economy was painful for something that gave me less performance.

That said, when the head gasket went on the diesel I was out of my depth (too many pipes and sensors I had no clue what did) and I had to a pay a clever man a lot of money to sort it. There's very few things on the petrol car that I wouldn't be confident in doing myself.

If I'd bought a petrol beemer with an adequate number of cylinders (6), it would not feel gutless, and the fuel economy would be worth it for the sound alone. Thus the petrol vs petrol decision is a little tricky; due to the amount of miles I do and the fact I think genuinely think diesel power delivery is better on the motorway, it would be sensible to go for a powerful diesel. That said, I'm a we for the sound of a proper engine...

This decision is also irrelevant, as a diesel 207 company car is arriving soon, which i've already decided is going to be a hateful piece of french crap (the fuel economy better be very good, else I'm likely to drive it off a cliff).

[Wills2]

Dave Hedgehog said:

i honestly would rather use public transport

but would you still pretend to be a policemen?

[poing]

Vladimir said:

So the next complete muppet that claims all diesels are dreadful has to ask himself (for it is always a male with a fragile ego) this - is a sub 200bhp, FWD hatch/whatever based very closely on a shopping car REALLY more fun than a 300+bhp RWD car with a sorted chassis and more torque than an AM DBS?

What a pointless comparison. Although that aside I guess it does depend how you like to drive, I'd happily have a nice Integra Type R than a 535D any day of the week. In fact I'd take almost any hot hatch, or petrol engined car for the roads I drive on. I like to rev my cars and diesels have their own appeal but the don't suit the way I like to drive.

If I had to live on motorways as a big part of my driving then I'd go for a nice powerful lazy diesel though because that makes sense. Most of my driving is B roads.

[Vladimir]

Lar said:

Jeez, this is a tedious thread, but I'll add my opinion anyway.

I went from a diesel three series to a petrol (4-cylinder) 3 series, and felt the petrol car was gutless, the power was in an annoying place in the rev range for 80% of real world driving situations and the fuel economy was painful for something that gave me less performance.

That said, when the head gasket went on the diesel I was out of my depth (too many pipes and sensors I had no clue what did) and I had to a pay a clever man a lot of money to sort it. There's very few things on the petrol car that I wouldn't be confident in doing myself.

If I'd bought a petrol beemer with an adequate number of cylinders (6), it would not feel gutless, and the fuel economy would be worth it for the sound alone. Thus the petrol vs petrol decision is a little tricky; due to the amount of miles I do and the fact I think genuinely think diesel power delivery is better on the motorway, it would be sensible to go for a powerful diesel. That said, I'm a we for the sound of a proper engine...

This decision is also irrelevant, as a diesel 207 company car is arriving soon, which i've already decided is going to be a hateful piece of french crap (the fuel economy better be very good, else I'm likely to drive it off a cliff).

[Dave Hedgehog]

swerni said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

Paul_M3 said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

im not bothered about the economy, only been getting 18mpg out of the S3, its the engine dynamics of the oil burner i find very unpalatable, i would rather have the s3 (a 7.5/10 car) than a passat oil burner and a 911 GT3 RS for summer weekend hooning because after a week in the passat i would want to crash it to inject some character into it

give me an RS4 as a daily drive and ill happily take the GT3 for play time

Really? Honestly?

I swapped my modified e46 M3 for a 320d Auto and an Elise SC.

I think it's the best car decision I've ever made.
No matter how good the M3 was, my 25 mile journey to work was still completely dull 95% of the time.

Now it's still dull, but MUCH more relaxing as the 320d auto is such an easy, lazy car to drive.

i honestly would rather use public transport

Bus wker



I quite like my diesel.
It's got a seven speed auto and a couple of turbo chargers, for mile munching and commuting it's the perfect tool.

RS4 with a duel clutch would be better

[StottyZr]

Vladimir said:

The Ashtray diesel we had (!) is another example - 150bhp but quicker 50-70 by some margin) than the more powerful AND lighter but torque lacking 170bhp petrol variant.

Just throwing it out there with a guess. Does the petrol have to do a change from second to third between 50-70 and the diesel can cover the entire range in third?