RE: PH Blog: diesel do nicely
Discussion
masermartin said:
E38Ross said:
why would you choose the diesel? your agument doesn't make sense. for point-and-squirt-to-30/40 a petrol is usually better. or are we now find you, as well as boz_boz or whatever drive any car at set rpm and have total disregard for gearing and road speed?
Rather brash assumption there?E38Ross said:
if you take cost out of the equation the petrol is smoother, freer revving (i'm sorry, what PHer doesn't want a free revving engine?), quieter, and have just as much "low down" grunt as an equivalent diesel if you learn what gear ratios mean.
Actually I know what gear ratios mean. They mean that I don't need to be thrashing the b
ks off of my diesel to make progress. This is more amenable to driving in town. Or are you one of those people who like to keep it in the power band as you are driving through residential areas at 2am? (See, I can make brash assumptions about people on the interwebs, too.)E38Ross said:
especially if you make it a more even playing field by turbo charging a petrol. all diesels are turbo charged because NA diesels are ste.
OK, I'll agree to this point if the "real PHers hate diesel" crew agree to stop lecturing me about the life span and replacement cost of turbochargers being a downside to buying a diesel - it'd only be fair after all.te.In fact, when "not thrashing it but making progress" in your diesel, what rpm do you shift at, and what is its rev limiter?
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 12th November 10:02
BeirutTaxi said:
big_boz said:
I think we can all agree an be unified in the fact that electric motors are a NO NO!
Maximum torque is available from 1 RPM 
masermartin said:
So, basically what you lot are saying is that people shouldn't buy a particular vehicle if there is a more capable alternative available, is that right? So, I should not have bought my TDI Bora, as there was a V5 or a V6 available, and if I wanted a Bora I should have got one of those, I guess. Right?
I kind of follow that argument. But then, it's a Mk IV golf basically, and they handle like the custard on a trifle. I really should have bought a Focus. Because we've already said we should rule out the hum-drum cars in the range, it should have been an ST170 really because that's got a decent balance of performance and practicality. But, actually, why would I buy an ST170, when I could pay a bit more and have had a Focus RS? It's a much more capable car, and fast becoming an iconic performance Ford. That would do the trick.
Except, that's a lot of power to be putting through the front wheels. Really, what I want is a rear-wheel-drive car. I could get a 130i for instance, that'd be better for similar power; it's also a PH friendly brand, the right wheels are being driven, so I can powerslide all the way to Tesco's and "feel the car balanced" (Side note - Why am I shopping at Tesco's when better places are available? I should be at Waitrose surely - mental note made for future weekly shops.) Except actually, the 1M would be an even better choice from that range, because it's a far more capable car. So it'd be that, then.
Except, a 1M is really a modern small-ish car trying to be a proper all-out sports car (I think that's a controversial statement, but apparently it's already been clearly decided that a hotted up normal car is not a sports car by the resident wisdom in this and the other thread). What I should really get is that proper sports car, say, a Porsche. Well, I still need the 4 seats; that rules out the Boxster and Cayman, so I guess the best option here is a 911 Carrera which handily has about the same power. But why get that, because there are significantly better models in the range? How about the 911 Turbo?
So basically, if any of you have not bought a 911 Turbo as your daily 4 seater, then you are all fking retarded idiots. Every other car company should shut down forthwith and we can all be safe in the knowledge that internet wisdom is infallible. Right, lads? ... Right? ...
Great logic and I follow it as much as I can. With one exception every car I have owned in the last 31 years had had either the largest or second largest petrol engine available at the time fitted. It's the natural way to do it, isn't it?I kind of follow that argument. But then, it's a Mk IV golf basically, and they handle like the custard on a trifle. I really should have bought a Focus. Because we've already said we should rule out the hum-drum cars in the range, it should have been an ST170 really because that's got a decent balance of performance and practicality. But, actually, why would I buy an ST170, when I could pay a bit more and have had a Focus RS? It's a much more capable car, and fast becoming an iconic performance Ford. That would do the trick.
Except, that's a lot of power to be putting through the front wheels. Really, what I want is a rear-wheel-drive car. I could get a 130i for instance, that'd be better for similar power; it's also a PH friendly brand, the right wheels are being driven, so I can powerslide all the way to Tesco's and "feel the car balanced" (Side note - Why am I shopping at Tesco's when better places are available? I should be at Waitrose surely - mental note made for future weekly shops.) Except actually, the 1M would be an even better choice from that range, because it's a far more capable car. So it'd be that, then.
Except, a 1M is really a modern small-ish car trying to be a proper all-out sports car (I think that's a controversial statement, but apparently it's already been clearly decided that a hotted up normal car is not a sports car by the resident wisdom in this and the other thread). What I should really get is that proper sports car, say, a Porsche. Well, I still need the 4 seats; that rules out the Boxster and Cayman, so I guess the best option here is a 911 Carrera which handily has about the same power. But why get that, because there are significantly better models in the range? How about the 911 Turbo?
So basically, if any of you have not bought a 911 Turbo as your daily 4 seater, then you are all f
king retarded idiots. Every other car company should shut down forthwith and we can all be safe in the knowledge that internet wisdom is infallible. Right, lads? ... Right? ...Edited by masermartin on Saturday 10th November 12:40
AC43 said:
Great logic and I follow it as much as I can. With one exception every car I have owned in the last 31 years had had either the largest or second largest petrol engine available at the time fitted. It's the natural way to do it, isn't it?
Great logic indeed, but the conclusion is always the same: purchase of a diesel-engined car is usually down to cost.E38Ross said:
Why do diesel owners think you need to thrash a petrol engine to keep up with a diesel? For instance, is taking a high revving engine to 5k thrashing it? No, yet you'd be bouncing off the rev limiter in almost all diesels which would be thrashing it.
In fact, when "not thrashing it but making progress" in your diesel, what rpm do you shift at, and what is its rev limiter?
I thought the whole point was that you love a free-revving petrol, right? If you're going to short shift it, you might as well get a diesel, they have horribly short rev ranges built in, dontcha know.In fact, when "not thrashing it but making progress" in your diesel, what rpm do you shift at, and what is its rev limiter?
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 12th November 10:02
masermartin said:
E38Ross said:
Why do diesel owners think you need to thrash a petrol engine to keep up with a diesel? For instance, is taking a high revving engine to 5k thrashing it? No, yet you'd be bouncing off the rev limiter in almost all diesels which would be thrashing it.
In fact, when "not thrashing it but making progress" in your diesel, what rpm do you shift at, and what is its rev limiter?
I thought the whole point was that you love a free-revving petrol, right? If you're going to short shift it, you might as well get a diesel, they have horribly short rev ranges built in, dontcha know.In fact, when "not thrashing it but making progress" in your diesel, what rpm do you shift at, and what is its rev limiter?
Edited by E38Ross on Monday 12th November 10:02
E38Ross said:
Because when you want to go for a hoon and enjoy yourself and you don't short shift, and high revving naturally aspirated petrol is simply a much more thrilling experience than any diesel I've experienced.
But I've got a car for hooning. It's not the diesel. Horses for courses.Edited by masermartin on Tuesday 13th November 12:32
BeirutTaxi said:
We haven't discussed and contrasted jet propulsion yet...
Well it would certainly allow you to claim that you burnt someone off at that lights. To a crisp, probably. 
Plus if you though diesels took an age to respond just try blipping the throttle on a jet engine
Edited by vee5 on Tuesday 13th November 15:41
chris182 said:
i.e. Acceleration is proportional to instantaneous power not torque. The reason why a layman thinks a 100bhp diesel feels faster than a 100bhp petrol is because a greater percentage of that 100bhp is delivered at the rev range he uses in general driving.
Which is why for general driving, I would choose diesel every time.Throttle response doesn't matter on a rush hour commute. Noise is overcome by soundproofing.
For a track car or something dedicated to B-road fun, petrol all the way. For everything else, diesel.
Limpet said:
chris182 said:
i.e. Acceleration is proportional to instantaneous power not torque. The reason why a layman thinks a 100bhp diesel feels faster than a 100bhp petrol is because a greater percentage of that 100bhp is delivered at the rev range he uses in general driving.
Which is why for general driving, I would choose diesel every time.Throttle response doesn't matter on a rush hour commute. Noise is overcome by soundproofing.
For a track car or something dedicated to B-road fun, petrol all the way. For everything else, diesel.
Plot power vs % of peak rpm and diesels usually have maybe 5-15% more power in the mid-range than equivalent petrols... if there are equivalents.
Even at extremes of say S2000 vs an x30d BMW with a remap with oodles of mid-range torque, the disparity is only about 30% for the same peak powers (ish)
I think most people just feel that kick of torque, the jerk, and think it's fast.
Mainly I'd say it's just economy why people buy them, but even that isn't always clear cut depending on usage.
I'm all for diesels in the right cars and things... but I'm not sure I'd have one in a TT... that said a TT really isn't a sports car, it's just a flash looking 'normal' car...
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
But it's not even that much greater usually.
Plot power vs % of peak rpm and diesels usually have maybe 5-15% more power in the mid-range than equivalent petrols... if there are equivalents.
Even at extremes of say S2000 vs an x30d BMW with a remap with oodles of mid-range torque, the disparity is only about 30% for the same peak powers (ish)
I think most people just feel that kick of torque, the jerk, and think it's fast.
Mainly I'd say it's just economy why people buy them, but even that isn't always clear cut depending on usage.
I'm all for diesels in the right cars and things... but I'm not sure I'd have one in a TT... that said a TT really isn't a sports car, it's just a flash looking 'normal' car...
Dave
Wow, someone else understands my point too. Plot power vs % of peak rpm and diesels usually have maybe 5-15% more power in the mid-range than equivalent petrols... if there are equivalents.
Even at extremes of say S2000 vs an x30d BMW with a remap with oodles of mid-range torque, the disparity is only about 30% for the same peak powers (ish)
I think most people just feel that kick of torque, the jerk, and think it's fast.
Mainly I'd say it's just economy why people buy them, but even that isn't always clear cut depending on usage.
I'm all for diesels in the right cars and things... but I'm not sure I'd have one in a TT... that said a TT really isn't a sports car, it's just a flash looking 'normal' car...
Dave
Even then, it's rarely the diesel giving the low down power, it's the turbo charger. Look at the torque curves for turbo charged petrol engines and deliver peak torque from very low down in their respective rev ranges.
Mr Whippy said:
I'm all for diesels in the right cars and things... but I'm not sure I'd have one in a TT... that said a TT really isn't a sports car, it's just a flash looking 'normal' car...
I see plenty of diesel TT cabrios. My next door neighboor has a diesel Audi A4 cabrio. What's that all about? Mad.E38Ross said:
Wow, someone else understands my point too.
Even then, it's rarely the diesel giving the low down power, it's the turbo charger. Look at the torque curves for turbo charged petrol engines and deliver peak torque from very low down in their respective rev ranges.
We aren't alone E38 Ross, there is other intelligent life out there! Even then, it's rarely the diesel giving the low down power, it's the turbo charger. Look at the torque curves for turbo charged petrol engines and deliver peak torque from very low down in their respective rev ranges.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff