Diesels About To Get Expensive????

[daemon]

fushion julz said:

I'd agree with you...provided you are in the position to own something more exciting/fast for the times when you are NOT commuting to work.

I recently was forced into replacing my E36 328i saloon due to rust and age. I considered several alternatives, including a diesel or two, but decided to stick with BMW (cos I like RWD, I like BMWs for their general reliability and low running costs and cos I have more knowledge of them than most other vehicles) and I chose to stick with petrol (I bought an E46 330i touring)...I didn't want to add a 3rd car to my fleet (at present) due to the increased overall cost (insurance, tax, upkeep, etc) and the better fuel economy of a diesel (even an older one such as an E46 320d/330d or Jag x-type) is offset by the increased other costs.
I know my car is not very economical over the 20 miles each way to and from work, but it does everything well...it carries 5 in comfort (including one child in a child seat) along with a weekends' camping gear, it is cheap to run (other than the fuel) and easy to fix and source parts for.
I am lucky in that I have my E30 M3 fro when I want some excitement (on a racetrack), but if the whol;e family wants to come we can't fit all 5 of us in the strictly 4-seat M3.

It does get a bit tiresome spending maybe £40 per week extra on fuel compared to a more frugal car, but I remind myself that it is worth it for the other attributes it brings...

Yes. Definitely. Each to their own circumstances. If i was doing a bit less miles i'd be considering other options. If i was doing a lot less miles, i'd certainly be able to buy some "heavy" metal - as i have done in the past.

The other thing is, my car isnt our main car. We've wifies 2.0 Turbo z4 for the weekend as theres usually just the two of us (son is 20 and has his own car), so we mostly buzz about in it evenings and weekends.

On the lookout for a wee project at the minute - missed out on a 1990 MX5, and a VW Corrado recently there - either of which would have amounted to no more outlay than a few months fuel savings.

[Pan Pan]

Fastdruid said:

That is perfect DMF ruining treatment though.

Plus I don't know how you put up with the lack of any go between tickover and ~1500-1700rpm (depends on which derv). It's my biggest hate of driving a diesel car, I've not driven one yet that doesn't have it.

My first Passat had nearly 200 thousand miles on it, and had no engine / transmission problems except for a new clutch at circa 115 thousand miles. There was a problem with the electrics, but that was down to a fluke problem with a stone thrown up from under the car which knicked a main cable allowing a short to occur. As for go it has good torque, and pulls like train from idle.
The Passat was not the most reliable car I have ever had (that was a scirocco) even so it had very few faults overall in its lifetime, I would have another in a heart beat, (in fact I did) because I found NOTHING else that does what it does, for the price, and on the basis of experience to date, would have another after this one. (To coin a phrase it does EXACTLY what it says it will do on the tin)

[daemon]

Fastdruid said:

Ah so now I'm not not only driving it wrong I'm not a good driver.

So as I'm not a good driver I'm not allowed to dislike having to rev the tits off it to not pull away at a crawl and change umpteen times more often?

Well you made the statement that "all diesels" had that problem, whereby there was zero power between tickover and 1500rpm, to the point of making it almost undriveably for you.

As this has NEVER happened to me and i've driven a load of diesels and petrols whilst motor trading, and noone else on here is report this "major problem" i can only assume EITHER there was a serious fault with the cars you drove OR you were driving it wrong OR you were unable to adjust to the power delivery?

Take you pick.

[Super Slo Mo]

Fastdruid said:

It's not that there isn't all the power, it is that there is *nothing*, zip, nada. No go. Easily 3 maybe up to 5 seconds foot flat to the floor with nothing happening.

Not driven a VAG but the BMW, Ford and Nissan have all been exactly the same.

3 to 5 seconds, seriously? Mine will happily pull off from almost standstill in second gear with no issue; I only ever use first from an absolute standing start to save the clutch.

Yes, there's a big step up in power as you rise through the rev range, but it's still perfectly useable from idle upwards. My 1996 Rover 600 was utterly flat when the turbo wasn't spinning, but things have moved on a bit now, variable vane turbos and clever electronics have changed the game a bit.

[Fastdruid]

daemon said:

Fastdruid said:

Ah so now I'm not not only driving it wrong I'm not a good driver.

So as I'm not a good driver I'm not allowed to dislike having to rev the tits off it to not pull away at a crawl and change umpteen times more often?

Well you made the statement that "all diesels" had that problem, whereby there was zero power between tickover and 1500rpm, to the point of making it almost undriveably for you.

As this has NEVER happened to me and i've driven a load of diesels and petrols whilst motor trading, and noone else on here is report this "major problem" i can only assume EITHER there was a serious fault with the cars you drove OR you were driving it wrong OR you were unable to adjust to the power delivery?

Take you pick.

Obviously just me and every diesel I've driven has been broken.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/diesel-tur...
http://www.xfforum.co.uk/threads/8352-Have-I-got-T...
http://www.stdrivers.co.uk/forum/topic/30598-is-th...
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/38560/tur...
http://petrolblog.com/2011/11/robs-vauxhall-insign...

PetrolBlog said:

Well, so far I haven’t been fortunate enough to experience the 2002, but I now have some understanding of the turbo lag. In the Vauxhall Insignia nothing happens between tickover and around 1750rpm unless you’re in first gear. You might think this would be no great problem, but this is the rev range that you tend to find yourself in when slowing down for a roundabout or junction and in second gear. You cruise up to the give way line, check that there’s a gap in the traffic and, if there is, you accelerate and… nothing. You’re going too fast to drop into first gear and second gear isn’t achieving anything. All you can do is sit and wait for the turbo to kick in, which as you pass 1500rpm, it starts to do. In the early days you find yourself rocking your body to urge the car forward, particularly if you eased out into a now rapidly closing gap in the traffic. To ensure that it wasn’t specific to this car I checked with a couple of other owners, one with a similar Insignia and one with the current Astra, and they suffer the same problem. To solve the problem, I’ve found the easiest thing to do is stop at every junction. I’m sure this doesn’t annoy following drivers.

[Super Slo Mo]

I'm not doubting you particularly, but it seems at odds with my experience.

To be fair though, my old Volvo D5 was leaden footed below around 1700 rpm, it wasn't unusable, but you couldn't do a rapid take off with it, just a gentle one. That was a bit old school in the power delivery. It's not 'turbo lag' as that article you linked to suggests either, it's just simply not 'on boost'. There's a difference.

That Insignia seems broken. Perhaps that's how Vauxhalls are.

[Pan Pan]

Fastdruid said:

daemon said:

Fastdruid said:

Ah so now I'm not not only driving it wrong I'm not a good driver.

So as I'm not a good driver I'm not allowed to dislike having to rev the tits off it to not pull away at a crawl and change umpteen times more often?

Well you made the statement that "all diesels" had that problem, whereby there was zero power between tickover and 1500rpm, to the point of making it almost undriveably for you.

As this has NEVER happened to me and i've driven a load of diesels and petrols whilst motor trading, and noone else on here is report this "major problem" i can only assume EITHER there was a serious fault with the cars you drove OR you were driving it wrong OR you were unable to adjust to the power delivery?

Take you pick.

Obviously just me and every diesel I've driven has been broken.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/diesel-tur...
http://www.xfforum.co.uk/threads/8352-Have-I-got-T...
http://www.stdrivers.co.uk/forum/topic/30598-is-th...
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/askhj/answer/38560/tur...
http://petrolblog.com/2011/11/robs-vauxhall-insign...

PetrolBlog said:

Well, so far I haven’t been fortunate enough to experience the 2002, but I now have some understanding of the turbo lag. In the Vauxhall Insignia nothing happens between tickover and around 1750rpm unless you’re in first gear. You might think this would be no great problem, but this is the rev range that you tend to find yourself in when slowing down for a roundabout or junction and in second gear. You cruise up to the give way line, check that there’s a gap in the traffic and, if there is, you accelerate and… nothing. You’re going too fast to drop into first gear and second gear isn’t achieving anything. All you can do is sit and wait for the turbo to kick in, which as you pass 1500rpm, it starts to do. In the early days you find yourself rocking your body to urge the car forward, particularly if you eased out into a now rapidly closing gap in the traffic. To ensure that it wasn’t specific to this car I checked with a couple of other owners, one with a similar Insignia and one with the current Astra, and they suffer the same problem. To solve the problem, I’ve found the easiest thing to do is stop at every junction. I’m sure this doesn’t annoy following drivers.

This could be down to Vauxhalls. I have occasionally had latest shape 1.6 petrol Astra`s as courtesy cars, when mine was in for servicing (generally at the 20 thousand mile mark between services) and the only description for them is appalling, not only completely gutless, but absolutely dire in terms of fuel consumption. As posted several times before, I don't know how Vauxhall manage to combine the fuel consumption of an ocean liner, with the performance of a mobility scooter??? I have had a petrol insignia as a hire car but only for about 300 miles, but that was gutless and useless on fuel too, so this might just be an issue on Vauxhalls. Pity really because other than their awful performance, they were quite nice cars.

[Fastdruid]

I haven't driven a vauxhall but its exactly the same experience I've had with BMW, Ford and Nissan.

[daemon]

Super Slo Mo said:

I'm not doubting you particularly, but it seems at odds with my experience reality.

EFA

[DervHead]

Pan Pan said:

This could be down to Vauxhalls. I have occasionally had latest shape 1.6 petrol Astra`s as courtesy cars, when mine was in for servicing (generally at the 20 thousand mile mark between services) and the only description for them is appalling, not only completely gutless, but absolutely dire in terms of fuel consumption. As posted several times before, I don't know how Vauxhall manage to combine the fuel consumption of an ocean liner, with the performance of a mobility scooter??? I have had a petrol insignia as a hire car but only for about 300 miles, but that was gutless and useless on fuel too, so this might just be an issue on Vauxhalls. Pity really because other than their awful performance, they were quite nice cars.

Not just me then LOL... I have a 63 plate Astra 2.0 CDTI 165ps Elite and it not only has the narrowest torque band I've ever seen but it drinks fuel like an alcoholic in a brewery. You just posted almost the exact words I said to my wife after suffering a 1.2 petrol Corsa courtesy car. How on earth they manage to make something so monumentally slow for the paper figures, that still drinks like a Ferrari, I'll never know.

New Skoda 1.4TSI on order. Thank God!

[Super Slo Mo]

Fastdruid said:

I haven't driven a vauxhall but its exactly the same experience I've had with BMW, Ford and Nissan.

Well, I drove a 320 ED, both manual and auto a couple of years back, never noticed it as being an issue, although the auto tended to default to the highest gear possible leaving it over geared in heavy traffic when I needed to accelerate sharply, but not sharply enough to initiate kick down.

[CraigyMc]

neil1jnr said:

What does a 3 series ED's have over a normal one to make it that efficient.

The following:

• Aerodynamic 16" wheels
• Michelin non-runflat energy saving tyres (205/55/R16), GreenX, BMW * marked (so, specific to BMW).
• It's lower than a normal E90 by 15mm although doesn't run on sports suspension - this cuts drag.
• It has very long gearing (essentially, has the final drive from one of the big six cylinder cars). 80mph is 1900-2000rpm in top, or thereabouts. The car won't pull 6th gear on a flat surface below about 50mph, for example.
• The ED has a unique centrifugal mass damper clutch, designed to let the engine rev smoothly from idle (900rpm) upward. Try that in a normal 320d and it chugs.
• The engine (N47D20) is retuned so that while it produces the same 380nm of torque as the normal 320d (in fact, in terms of parts and part numbers is the same engine, it produces less power (163ps versus 184ps), but for a longer proportion of the rev range.
• It has an active vent in front of the top part of the radiator (behind the BMW kidney grille) - this only opens when needed (it spends most of its time shoving air over the bonnet rather than through the engine bay, for less drag).
• Aerodynamically, my E90 ED has a drag coefficient of 0.27, which is the best of all the E90 3-series cars. The F30 variant is better, and the best of its range.

It has these things over and above the regular BMW technologies for cutting out waste:

• Start/Stop
• Electric water pump - runs only as much as is necessary
• Electric power steering
• Clutched air-conditioning unit (decouples when not needed)
• Low friction engine surface treatments

[TA14]

CraigyMc said:

in fact, in terms of parts and part numbers is the same engine,

It has these things over and above the regular BMW technologies for cutting out waste:

• Low friction engine surface treatments

How do you square that one?

[CraigyMc]

TA14 said:

CraigyMc said:

in fact, in terms of parts and part numbers is the same engine,

It has these things over and above the regular BMW technologies for cutting out waste:

• Low friction engine surface treatments

How do you square that one?

The top list is things the ED has. The bottom list is things BMWs in general have, hence "the regular BMW technologies for cutting out waste".

Capiche?

[Captainawesome]

Fastdruid said:

I haven't driven a vauxhall but its exactly the same experience I've had with BMW, Ford and Nissan.

Had the same problem with my company's vectra, nearly killed me at a roundabout. I too, am apparently incapable of driving properly. (Yes you can all bring up the Smart car incident again if you wish. Had I driven unsafely and recklessly I could have lost him but actually driving safely interests me more than the approval of a bunch of internet people. I kinda thought it was amusing, maybe you diesel guys are using your sense of humour wrong)

I would give up here though bud, you'll never convince these geezers that diesels are anything but amazing and that they are all driving gods whose eminence we mere mortals can only hope to have the intelligence to aspire to.

[Super Slo Mo]

No one's said they're amazing, if I could afford to run an M3 for 20,000 miles I probably would, although driving it on very busy motorways, or even empty ones for that matter, will just be frustrating, equally as dull as a diesel, and needlessly costly. Probably not as relaxing either, which is quite important when an average day is 12 hours.

It's just that for many of us, a comfy, frugal car is most appropriate for the daily driving duties.

[daemon]

Captainawesome said:

I would give up here though bud, you'll never convince these geezers that diesels are anything but amazing and that they are all driving gods whose eminence we mere mortals can only hope to have the intelligence to aspire to.

Diesels arent amazing. Thats the whole point. But they're great mile munchers and great at keeping the fuel bills sensible if you're doing big miles. Its called "picking the right car for the job".

Personally, i wouldnt have a diesel about me if i was doing average miles or less. The last time i was (as can be seen in my profile) i'd a handful of 330Cis, couple of S-Type 3 litres and a XJ. Which i thought was doing quite well as i was on crap money at the time and its my missus who drives our main car, not me.

And as i've said already on this thread, my advice would be - unless you're doing big big miles, dont consider a diesel.

And then of course you come along - "hey its all about the handling man", "its all about the twisties for me, the power, the acceleration!!!"

THEN it turns out you cant actually drive it on the twisties and a 60BHP Smart car can keep up with you.

And THEN to cap it all, when you're driving a car that isnt "all about the power", and you have to actually WORK the car to get the most out of it, you nearly get yourself wrecked at a roundabout.



Truly - you couldnt make it up.

[daemon]

Super Slo Mo said:

No one's said they're amazing, if I could afford to run an M3 for 20,000 miles I probably would, although driving it on very busy motorways, or even empty ones for that matter, will just be frustrating, equally as dull as a diesel, and needlessly costly. Probably not as relaxing either, which is quite important when an average day is 12 hours.

It's just that for many of us, a comfy, frugal car is most appropriate for the daily driving duties.

+1

Totally.

[Captainawesome]

daemon said:

Captainawesome said:

I would give up here though bud, you'll never convince these geezers that diesels are anything but amazing and that they are all driving gods whose eminence we mere mortals can only hope to have the intelligence to aspire to.

Diesels arent amazing. Thats the whole point. But they're great mile munchers and great at keeping the fuel bills sensible if you're doing big miles. Its called "picking the right car for the job".

Personally, i wouldnt have a diesel about me if i was doing average miles or less. The last time i was (as can be seen in my profile) i'd a handful of 330Cis, couple of S-Type 3 litres and a XJ. Which i thought was doing quite well as i was on crap money at the time and its my missus who drives our main car, not me.

And as i've said already on this thread, my advice would be - unless you're doing big big miles, dont consider a diesel.

And then of course you come along - "hey its all about the handling man", "its all about the twisties for me, the power, the acceleration!!!"

THEN it turns out you cant actually drive it on the twisties and a 60BHP Smart car can keep up with you.

And THEN to cap it all, when you're driving a car that isnt "all about the power", and you have to actually WORK the car to get the most out of it, you nearly get yourself wrecked at a roundabout.



Truly - you couldnt make it up.

Captainawesome said:

(Yes you can all bring up the Smart car incident again if you wish. Had I driven unsafely and recklessly I could have lost him but actually driving safely interests me more than the approval of a bunch of internet people.

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

[Super Slo Mo]

Captainawesome said:

When a car is in first gear, I expect it to go when I put my foot down, at least a little bit, not wait for 2 seconds for the fecking turbo to kick in before it will actually do anything.

That's more a characteristic of turbocharged engines than diesels specifically. Off boost they are relatively sluggish.