Sporty Diesel

[tjlees]

yonex said:

There we go then, a 330d is a better sports car than a Boxster. Seriously. What a total crock of st

What next, 7 series has as much mechanical grip as a base Caterham.......

Actually the base caterham is 0.69g.

330/5d ain't no sports car, it not a good as any porsche, but like the alpina D3 it's a sporty diesel IMHO.

[Welshbeef]

What about the only diesel sports car the SLK 350 CDI blue tech? No one is discussing it

What about the A4/5 2ltr TDI vert

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

So what do you draw from the skid pan test? Just a stat and a meaningless one at that? Didn't we all look in awe at the GTR Nissan lateral G and also the P1 etc given that to instantly discount it as you have seems odd.


But I certainly agree the 3 series is not a sports car while the Boxster is.

It's easy to make the distinction.

GTR technical tour de force, incredible grip, worries hyper cars.
BMW 330d, decent grip for a saloon car, isn't going to trouble a Boxster.

I'm sure the skidpan test has a value but it can't tell you how a car feels, just a measure of mass controlled by pure mechanical grip. It's how a car changes direction and slips that makes it a sports car.

[Welshbeef]

yonex said:

It's easy to make the distinction.

GTR technical tour de force, incredible grip, worries hyper cars.
BMW 330d, decent grip for a saloon car, isn't going to trouble a Boxster.

I'm sure the skidpan test has a value but it can't tell you how a car feels, just a measure of mass controlled by pure mechanical grip. It's how a car changes direction and slips that makes it a sports car.

So should we look to lap times then?

We need a quantifiable way of ranking - subjective feel doesn't count. If a car inspires confidence do you say its more fun? Isn't whiplash thrust fun too?

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

So should we look to lap times then?

We need a quantifiable way of ranking - subjective feel doesn't count. If a car inspires confidence do you say its more fun? Isn't whiplash thrust fun too?

On which circuit. I mean a tight short circuit will highlight a more nimble car, an open one something with lots of power. It's all about feel, which is why everyone disagrees

[nickfrog]

tjlees said:

nickfrog said:

tjlees said:

nickfrog said:

tjlees said:

330D grips better than the boxster too - 0.99g v 0.93g even given 1735kg v 1420kg.

Source ? Having driven / owned both I know exactly which one has higher lat acceleration, by far.

Lighters cars with lower COG tends to generate more lateral load, tyres being equal. Even BMW can't defy the basic laws of physics.

Autocar.

Go on. I'll bite. Links please ? Or scan. Or whatever. I got 1.00g out of a 2.7 987 on road Contis so something is amiss somewhere.

its a digital edition so photo of a screen will have to do....stops quicker as well - however if I could convince the OH

Something seriously wrong there. As I said, the laws of physics can't be bent (incredibly enough). The sheer fact that it stops in a shorter distance too tells me that the Boxsters' tyres were shot, or a spring, whatever. As I said, I got 1g out of a crusty old 987 on a V-box...
It would take anyone 5mn to realise which is the far better chassis, without taking ANYTHING away from the BMW.

[unpc]

tjlees said:

Actually the base caterham is 0.69g.

330/5d ain't no sports car, it not a good as any porsche, but like the alpina D3 it's a sporty diesel IMHO.

Dunno if you're referring to the new D3 but I have the original one and it definitely a'int sporty. The coal burner in the front sees to that. It's quick enough but working the engine is about as pleasurable as drilling your own teeth.

[Welshbeef]

unpc said:

Dunno if you're referring to the new D3 but I have the original one and it definitely a'int sporty. The coal burner in the front sees to that. It's quick enough but working the engine is about as pleasurable as drilling your own teeth.

The new one which does 0-100mph in 9 odd seconds narrowly losing to the new M3 and by narrow its not even the length of a front wing between them by 100mph.
LSD too
RWD
360bhp
5,750rpm red line
4 exhausts
55mpg combined cycle bettering the BMW as BMW do x drive only for the 335d Alpina do rwd only

[RobM77]

nickfrog said:

tjlees said:

nickfrog said:

tjlees said:

nickfrog said:

tjlees said:

330D grips better than the boxster too - 0.99g v 0.93g even given 1735kg v 1420kg.

Source ? Having driven / owned both I know exactly which one has higher lat acceleration, by far.

Lighters cars with lower COG tends to generate more lateral load, tyres being equal. Even BMW can't defy the basic laws of physics.

Autocar.

Go on. I'll bite. Links please ? Or scan. Or whatever. I got 1.00g out of a 2.7 987 on road Contis so something is amiss somewhere.

its a digital edition so photo of a screen will have to do....stops quicker as well - however if I could convince the OH

Something seriously wrong there. As I said, the laws of physics can't be bent (incredibly enough). The sheer fact that it stops in a shorter distance too tells me that the Boxsters' tyres were shot, or a spring, whatever. As I said, I got 1g out of a crusty old 987 on a V-box...
It would take anyone 5mn to realise which is the far better chassis, without taking ANYTHING away from the BMW.

Surely there are too many variables here, eg temperature, driving ability, tyres etc? Grip levels don't define sportiness anyway do they? I could make an Astra exceed both of them with the right tyres - that doesn't make it sporty!

[nickfrog]

I couldn't agree with you more. I would expect Autocar to have consistency in their testing procedures though as to not look too daft. The American mags seem much more thorough in that respect.

[rouge59]

So a BMW diesel handles better & would leave a Boxster S behind on the twisties?


Right that's it, we might as well switch the internet off for good now, because nothing will top that for utter lunacy.

[RobM77]

rouge59 said:

So a BMW diesel handles better & would leave a Boxster S behind on the twisties?


Right that's it, we might as well switch the internet off for good now, because nothing will top that for utter lunacy.

I wouldn't be so hasty to call it lunacy.

Firstly, everyone has their own definition of good handling. The Elise, for example, splits opinion: some didn't like the S1's lift of oversteer, but others with a different driving style never found it; some don't like the S2's understeer, but some others with a different driving style never found it; some don't like the rearward weight bias of both models; some people praised it as the best handling car ever etc etc. Following on from al those different reports of one car, I wouldn't be surprised if someone said to me they found a 1500kg FE/RWD car nicer to handle through the twisties than a 1400kg ME/RWD, or the other way round - neither is very far fetched and both are quite believable and could be quite intelligent and well thought out opinions.

Secondly, those performance stats in the screen grabs above are pretty close, so within errors, I wouldn't place any bets on a race. Even if temperature and the condition of the tyres contributed to the lateral g readings being unreliable giving the advantage to the BMW, or the 0-60 being different in a simlar way (acceleration figures from rest are notoriously difficult to do well - I don't think I ever did a perfect start in ten years of racing), the figures are within errors very close to each other. Not to mention that a ME/RWD car will favour 0-60 more than a FE/RWD car, so once rolling in a real race if both have the same 0-60, the FE/RWD could be quicker. So it's actually quite conceivable that a BMW diesel is faster than a Porsche Boxster S from point to point - what if that had been a 335d for instance, instead of a 330d? The fact is that people buy each car for completly different reasons, most of them not linked to performance. The BMW is if you need to carry four people, need roof bars, a big boot etc. The Boxster is if you don't have to do all that and want to enjoy a different driving experience that becomes open to you when you don't want those things. I have a saloon and a sports car; ok in my case the sports car is massively faster than the saloon, but if the tables were turned and I owned an M3 and an original 1960s Lotus Elan, that's not too unusual a car choice is it? (in fact it's one idea I have for retirement!). I'd still drive the Elan for pleasure and wouldn't bat an eyelid at the thought that my daily driver was faster than my sports car. I'd own those two cars and own my present two cars for exactly the same reasons - I like the way they drive and they satisfy the practical needs I have in a car. I could go on but I need to rescue a caterpillar that's crawling across my desk - I think I explained that ok?

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 24th September 15:08

[unpc]

Welshbeef said:

The new one which does 0-100mph in 9 odd seconds narrowly losing to the new M3 and by narrow its not even the length of a front wing between them by 100mph.
LSD too
RWD
360bhp
5,750rpm red line
4 exhausts
55mpg combined cycle bettering the BMW as BMW do x drive only for the 335d Alpina do rwd only

Well there you go. It's got 4 exhausts so it must be sporty

I haven't driven it but just because it's fast, it's no guarantee that it's sporty. Whatever that actually means.

[RobM77]

unpc said:

just because it's fast, it's no guarantee that it's sporty. Whatever that actually means.

and vice versa. I think that sums the thread up!

[Captainawesome]

yonex said:

There we go then, a 330d is a better sports car than a Boxster. Seriously. What a total crock of st

What next, 7 series has as much mechanical grip as a base Caterham.......

Seems like yet another case of man on internet reads something and quotes it as gospel truth despite someone who has owned and driven both cars extensively telling them different. I have run into this a few times on PH.

If you take them on some nice twisty roads where visibility isn't an issue I'd be very surprised if the big family beemer was as agile as a small 2 seater sports car.

Then again Johnny down the pub said his remapped 330d was faster than the speed of light and enabled him to time travel so I guess that must be true too.

[Fastdruid]

unpc said:

Welshbeef said:

The new one which does 0-100mph in 9 odd seconds narrowly losing to the new M3 and by narrow its not even the length of a front wing between them by 100mph.
LSD too
RWD
360bhp
5,750rpm red line
4 exhausts
55mpg combined cycle bettering the BMW as BMW do x drive only for the 335d Alpina do rwd only

Well there you go. It's got 4 exhausts so it must be sporty

I haven't driven it but just because it's fast, it's no guarantee that it's sporty. Whatever that actually means.

I love that a 5750rpm red line is highlighted as being "sporty", while there is no international standard for "sporty" I'm pretty sure that a red line of only 5750 doesn't count.

[ORD]

RobM77 said:

rouge59 said:

So a BMW diesel handles better & would leave a Boxster S behind on the twisties?


Right that's it, we might as well switch the internet off for good now, because nothing will top that for utter lunacy.

I wouldn't be so hasty to call it lunacy.

Firstly, everyone has their own definition of good handling. The Elise, for example, splits opinion: some didn't like the S1's lift of oversteer, but others with a different driving style never found it; some don't like the S2's understeer, but some others with a different driving style never found it; some don't like the rearward weight bias of both models; some people praised it as the best handling car ever etc etc. Following on from al those different reports of one car, I wouldn't be surprised if someone said to me they found a 1500kg FE/RWD car nicer to handle through the twisties than a 1400kg ME/RWD, or the other way round - neither is very far fetched and both are quite believable and could be quite intelligent and well thought out opinions.

Secondly, those performance stats in the screen grabs above are pretty close, so within errors, I wouldn't place any bets on a race. Even if temperature and the condition of the tyres contributed to the lateral g readings being unreliable giving the advantage to the BMW, or the 0-60 being different in a simlar way (acceleration figures from rest are notoriously difficult to do well - I don't think I ever did a perfect start in ten years of racing), the figures are within errors very close to each other. Not to mention that a ME/RWD car will favour 0-60 more than a FE/RWD car, so once rolling in a real race if both have the same 0-60, the FE/RWD could be quicker. So it's actually quite conceivable that a BMW diesel is faster than a Porsche Boxster S from point to point - what if that had been a 335d for instance, instead of a 330d? The fact is that people buy each car for completly different reasons, most of them not linked to performance. The BMW is if you need to carry four people, need roof bars, a big boot etc. The Boxster is if you don't have to do all that and want to enjoy a different driving experience that becomes open to you when you don't want those things. I have a saloon and a sports car; ok in my case the sports car is massively faster than the saloon, but if the tables were turned and I owned an M3 and an original 1960s Lotus Elan, that's not too unusual a car choice is it? (in fact it's one idea I have for retirement!). I'd still drive the Elan for pleasure and wouldn't bat an eyelid at the thought that my daily driver was faster than my sports car. I'd own those two cars and own my present two cars for exactly the same reasons - I like the way they drive and they satisfy the practical needs I have in a car. I could go on but I need to rescue a caterpillar that's crawling across my desk - I think I explained that ok?

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 24th September 15:08

I agree with a lot of that, but having driven both a 987.2S (slower than the current one) and a 330d, the Boxster S would be a fair bit quicker on a mixed roads. It's not terribly important, because it's obvious which would be more fun and "sporty", but there it is!

[unpc]

Fastdruid said:

I love that a 5750rpm red line is highlighted as being "sporty", while there is no international standard for "sporty" I'm pretty sure that a red line of only 5750 doesn't count.

I don't think I've driven a diesel that wasn't all done by 4000rpm and I'd suggest 5750 or whatever is a theoretical number.

[ORD]

unpc said:

I don't think I've driven a diesel that wasn't all done by 4000rpm and I'd suggest 5750 or whatever is a theoretical number.

I'm not sure that is quite fair - the new BMW diesels do carry on well above 4000rpm. The point is that you don't really get anything from staying in that gear rather than changing up because (1) you would probably accelerate faster in the higher gear and (2) the engine aint gonna sound any better for being revved.

[unpc]

ORD said:

unpc said:

I don't think I've driven a diesel that wasn't all done by 4000rpm and I'd suggest 5750 or whatever is a theoretical number.

I'm not sure that is quite fair - the new BMW diesels do carry on well above 4000rpm. The point is that you don't really get anything from staying in that gear rather than changing up because (1) you would probably accelerate faster in the higher gear and (2) the engine aint gonna sound any better for being revved.

Yes of course but as you're well past peak torque and power by that point it's futile to stay in that gear any longer making the upper reaches of the rev range redundant. Which is the reason I'd say there are no sporty diesels as there's no fun in wringing them out. IMO.