RE: Diesel myths debunked
Discussion
Lost soul said:
What car would not shake and stutter at 20mph in 5th
However mine will run at a steady 30mph in 5th
My old 328 was quite happy do this. It would make nice rumble too.However mine will run at a steady 30mph in 5th
Obviously it was quite as fast a pull as say, I dropped into first, but it did so without any untoward noises or vibrations.
The diesel fiesta I am currently driving is down right dangerous. It takes quite a lot of getting used to, get the start wrong and you are left in a valley of lag whilst the car to your right is coming towards you and you can do nothing.
Dave Hedgehog said:
they forgot
1) oil burners have very narrow power bands, so you will be either sitting there with the loud pedal pressed waiting for something to happen, or flying towards the car in front of you
2) oil burners are as boring as watching grass grow
Or indeed as boring as reading your predictable t1) oil burners have very narrow power bands, so you will be either sitting there with the loud pedal pressed waiting for something to happen, or flying towards the car in front of you
2) oil burners are as boring as watching grass grow
ttish nonsense. Our Bi-turbo diesels both pull from almost bugger all revs. The van needs more stoking but is still lively above 1500rpm.
It woulm help the diesel bashers argument if the majority had a clue what they were talking about. As it is, the amount of utter nonsense being spouted does kind of kill the case against the soot chucker.
I can count the number of informed anti dieselites and the fingers of a single hand. At least debating with them has some point to it. For the rest, its like suggesting less food and more exercise could be of benefit to a group of fat Americans.
It woulm help the diesel bashers argument if the majority had a clue what they were talking about. As it is, the amount of utter nonsense being spouted does kind of kill the case against the soot chucker.
I can count the number of informed anti dieselites and the fingers of a single hand. At least debating with them has some point to it. For the rest, its like suggesting less food and more exercise could be of benefit to a group of fat Americans.
Devil2575 said:
I'm interested as to why in the US the diesel gets such poor economy? A 2.5l petrol only gets 7/9 mpg worse than a 2 litre diesel?
Maybe there's something else going on here?
On paper the US 2.5 gets worse than the EURO GTI, which isn't supprising. What is supprising is that the US Diesel model gets a lot worse mpg than the Euro diesel. Combined of 58 for the Euro model but in the US thats 30-42 US which is 36-50mpg UK? So a combined which will be around 42mpg?
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
According to the US VW site they only list the 2.5 as an engine option, no diesel.
http://www.vw.com/en/models/golf/trims-specs.html#...
Call me suspicious about the US EPA estimated milages but IIRC these were the ones that stated the latest BMW M3 did about 10 mpg and the Boss Mustang did 25 mpg...
I am curious about that as well, but don't have an answer. I suspect it may be that the 'blend' of diesel used in the U.S. is different. I feel certain that is at least part of the answer.Maybe there's something else going on here?
On paper the US 2.5 gets worse than the EURO GTI, which isn't supprising. What is supprising is that the US Diesel model gets a lot worse mpg than the Euro diesel. Combined of 58 for the Euro model but in the US thats 30-42 US which is 36-50mpg UK? So a combined which will be around 42mpg?
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
According to the US VW site they only list the 2.5 as an engine option, no diesel.
http://www.vw.com/en/models/golf/trims-specs.html#...
Call me suspicious about the US EPA estimated milages but IIRC these were the ones that stated the latest BMW M3 did about 10 mpg and the Boss Mustang did 25 mpg...
Edited by Devil2575 on Friday 27th April 17:30
I was told by Cosworth that their 250 bhp-spec Duratec available in the states is exactly the same spec engine as used in the Caterham CSR 260, but the difference is that when it is run on petrol, it produces ~10 more bhp than when it is run on gas.
Here is a good point, and from my actual driving experience.
P reg 1.4 polo, 45mpg.
59 reg 1.4 diesel fiesta, 45mpg. Despite 67mpg claimed.
If a very average driver was looking to change his or her car on the promise of 67mpg they will have been royally conned and would have wasted their money on a new car with all the depreciation.
Diesels aren't getting better on fuel because prices are going up. It's the other way around. Manufacturers are promising more and more ridiculous mpg claims and the government is looking at this, and increasing the tax so they don't lose out. They genuinely think these cars will actually achieve the claimed figures, and that every driver will buy one. Wake up people, diesels aren't the solution to the problem they are the cause.
P reg 1.4 polo, 45mpg.
59 reg 1.4 diesel fiesta, 45mpg. Despite 67mpg claimed.
If a very average driver was looking to change his or her car on the promise of 67mpg they will have been royally conned and would have wasted their money on a new car with all the depreciation.
Diesels aren't getting better on fuel because prices are going up. It's the other way around. Manufacturers are promising more and more ridiculous mpg claims and the government is looking at this, and increasing the tax so they don't lose out. They genuinely think these cars will actually achieve the claimed figures, and that every driver will buy one. Wake up people, diesels aren't the solution to the problem they are the cause.
swerni said:
fozzymandeus said:
swerni said:
fozzymandeus said:
Diesels might be fast, frugal and smooth.
But they are all rubbish. FACT.
10 PH points for moi.
Afraid not.But they are all rubbish. FACT.
10 PH points for moi.
You lose 8 of those points for only buying the 350 on not the 55AMG.
Sorry.
That would lose the only 2 points you have left.
You could always supercharge it
Vladimir said:
Our Bi-turbo diesels both pull from almost bugger all revs. The van needs more stoking but is still lively above 1500rpm.
It woulm help the diesel bashers argument if the majority had a clue what they were talking about. As it is, the amount of utter nonsense being spouted does kind of kill the case against the soot chucker.
I can count the number of informed anti dieselites and the fingers of a single hand. At least debating with them has some point to it. For the rest, its like suggesting less food and more exercise could be of benefit to a group of fat Americans.
I had a VAG 2.0 TDi and it was great for doing 20k+ miles per year, especially driving to Spain where I could get to Alicante from Blighty on 2 full tanks of DERV sitting on the motorways. But when 99% of my driving became a 10 mile commute to work over some B road twisties the diesel just became more of a hindrance... MPG dropped into the high 30's and the car never warmed up before the journey ended and it was just not a happy bunny.It woulm help the diesel bashers argument if the majority had a clue what they were talking about. As it is, the amount of utter nonsense being spouted does kind of kill the case against the soot chucker.
I can count the number of informed anti dieselites and the fingers of a single hand. At least debating with them has some point to it. For the rest, its like suggesting less food and more exercise could be of benefit to a group of fat Americans.
I now have a VAG 2.0 Petrol TSi and it loves the B road twisties. MPG is low 30's when driving spiritedly however I can make it do 37mpg if I drive carefully and petrol is cheaper than diesel. The car is warm in 2 minutes and I can keep it on boost all the way if I want fun fun fun. My annual mileage is now around the 9K mark and my annual running costs would have been more if I had kept the diesel.
If I had to start cruising the motorways a lot again I would get another diesel.
Horses for courses really.
Diesels are excellent when driven constantly at the correct revs for the engine. They are ideal for boats, trains, generators and motorway use. They are not as good at changing speed due to inetria of the heavy internal parts.
Diesels would be ideal for trans-continental America, but only if the driver is interested in low mpg. As the cost per gallon is comparible to high octane petrol and fuel is so cheap in the states, why would anyone want to move away from the flexiblity of petrol?
Given the choice between doing Route 66 in a V8 gas guzzler for $600 or a relatively uninspiring diesel for $200, I know what I'd do.
Diesels would be ideal for trans-continental America, but only if the driver is interested in low mpg. As the cost per gallon is comparible to high octane petrol and fuel is so cheap in the states, why would anyone want to move away from the flexiblity of petrol?
Given the choice between doing Route 66 in a V8 gas guzzler for $600 or a relatively uninspiring diesel for $200, I know what I'd do.
Vladimir said:
So you've driven a Polo and a Fiesta. And feel qualified to comment on a thread about fast diesels in the US.
Point completely proven.
Da fuq?! Cock. I won't waffle on about cars I have driven or not, but suffice to say where is the point in the diesel equivalent if it achieves 20mpg less than the manufacturers figure? The two cars are similar enough to make a fair comparison.Point completely proven.
I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This s
t should be on watchdog.pingu393 said:
Given the choice between doing Route 66 in a V8 gas guzzler for $600 or a relatively uninspiring diesel for $200, I know what I'd do.
Bit of a strawman. Now imagine if you were doing that route as a daily, or weekly thing for work, or whatever... Still using the V8 petrol? ADM06 said:
Da fuq?! Cock. I won't waffle on about cars I have driven or not, but suffice to say where is the point in the diesel equivalent if it achieves 20mpg less than the manufacturers figure? The two cars are similar enough to make a fair comparison.
I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This st should be on watchdog.
Angry as well as ignorant. I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This s
t should be on watchdog.Even the most hardened diesel fan will agree that for a small, city car, a petrol is better. So again your argument is the same old vacuous waffle trotted out by countless ill informed goons lacking a single thought of their own. Most read the Daily Mail too.
pingu393 said:
Given the choice between doing Route 66 in a V8 gas guzzler for $600 or a relatively uninspiring diesel for $200, I know what I'd do.
Sure but route 66 is not our everyday world is it , my world was driving thousands of autobhan miles all around Europe - Scandinavia and my 525d was perfect at that jobThat has changed now so i am re evaluating my needs
ADM06 said:
Da fuq?! Cock. I won't waffle on about cars I have driven or not, but suffice to say where is the point in the diesel equivalent if it achieves 20mpg less than the manufacturers figure? The two cars are similar enough to make a fair comparison.
I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This st should be on watchdog.
Each and every new cars sits a standardised test. Same conditions, same speeds and distance. They use a certain amount of fuel to complete the test, this is then converted to Mpg. The fiesta sat the test and achieved 67mpg. Just because you couldn't get this on your route doesn't mean the manufacturer lied. Infact it'd be pretty hard for them to lie, as the car sat a standardised test. You have no idea what your talking about. Diesels in general, use less fuel than their petrol counterparts. This is a fact, not an arguement (with some anomlies)I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This s
t should be on watchdog.Vladimir said:
ADM06 said:
Da fuq?! Cock. I won't waffle on about cars I have driven or not, but suffice to say where is the point in the diesel equivalent if it achieves 20mpg less than the manufacturers figure? The two cars are similar enough to make a fair comparison.
I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This st should be on watchdog.
Angry as well as ignorant. I would like to bet manufacturers are fearful of selling their lie-mobile diesels to the yanks, they will probably sue after getting 2/3rds of the mpg figure and tbh, I think they'd have grounds too. This s
t should be on watchdog.Even the most hardened diesel fan will agree that for a small, city car, a petrol is better. So again your argument is the same old vacuous waffle trotted out by countless ill informed goons lacking a single thought of their own. Most read the Daily Mail too.
You mistake my disbelief for anger. At no point did I say I own the fiesta or pay for the dangerous slippery fuel it uses, but if did buy a car for it to use much more fuel than I had been led to believe, I'd be pretty pissed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff