Diesel just doesn't win me over....
Discussion
ORD said:
Welshbeef said:
You are incorrect
Diesel was not designed for that - instead Dr Diesel hoped it would mobilise the 2nd and 3rd world countries and that they can run on anything really. IE peanut oil etc. so a very cheap way to run an engine throughout the world.
It's output characteristics originally was N/A so chug chug chug low revs high output while using much less fuel a win win.
The terrible noise they used to make was down to the indirect injection this has moved to direct injection which has vastly decreased its noise. They have increased frequency and moved up to super high pressure injector rails which has reduced this further (oddly many people say the E92 M3 & E60 M5 sound very like a diesel at ide).
The engineers have essentially made the best diesels now have a Rev France up to 6k revs similar to most forced induction Petrols. They have also worked hard tomassivrlt amplify its character to make it a very useful tool for overtaking and it's true that on average your accessing a vastly higher % of its output than the petrol equivalent. So driving a diesel you are using more of its outright abilities more of the time than an identical powered petrol (thus they are quicker at times).
The sensation of surging does give those in the cabin a sense of hard acceleration - whereas in a petrol if your hitting Rev limit in 3rd your doing 100mph. Fine on private roads but that means you only have 1st gear to hit max power and 2nd gear or 3rd with some very short geared cars.
The surge is 'jerk' which you get because the acceleration is strongly non-linear. Linear power delivery is much more enjoyable to most enthusiastic drivers. Diesel was not designed for that - instead Dr Diesel hoped it would mobilise the 2nd and 3rd world countries and that they can run on anything really. IE peanut oil etc. so a very cheap way to run an engine throughout the world.
It's output characteristics originally was N/A so chug chug chug low revs high output while using much less fuel a win win.
The terrible noise they used to make was down to the indirect injection this has moved to direct injection which has vastly decreased its noise. They have increased frequency and moved up to super high pressure injector rails which has reduced this further (oddly many people say the E92 M3 & E60 M5 sound very like a diesel at ide).
The engineers have essentially made the best diesels now have a Rev France up to 6k revs similar to most forced induction Petrols. They have also worked hard tomassivrlt amplify its character to make it a very useful tool for overtaking and it's true that on average your accessing a vastly higher % of its output than the petrol equivalent. So driving a diesel you are using more of its outright abilities more of the time than an identical powered petrol (thus they are quicker at times).
The sensation of surging does give those in the cabin a sense of hard acceleration - whereas in a petrol if your hitting Rev limit in 3rd your doing 100mph. Fine on private roads but that means you only have 1st gear to hit max power and 2nd gear or 3rd with some very short geared cars.
Diesel really only makes sense (stupid taxation apart) for drivers who do a lot of miles.
As for 6000rpm - the limiter may kick in then, but you are well past peak torque and quite far beyond peak power. Realistically, most people change up at (at most) 4000rpm in a diesel and 6000rpm in a petrol, which is quite a big difference. There are still diesels out there that give up at around 4000rpm (having had nothing below 2000rpm), so the problem of a minuscule power band is still real (although not in BMWs, etc).
The advances in diesel tech have been amazing. If only all that money and effort had been thrown at petrol engines or hybrid tech.
Which reminds me, I really must look into a remap
Diderot said:
That's the thing Ord - as you qualified, the nothing below 2k rpm doesn't afflict the x35/x40ds. I forget the precise figures but IIRC the x35d makes 90% torque at 1,750 rpm or something mad like that.
Which reminds me, I really must look into a remap
Yeah. Similar for modern turbo petrols, too. Good in an A-B car or motorway mile muncher, but not much fun.Which reminds me, I really must look into a remap
Diderot said:
That's the thing Ord - as you qualified, the nothing below 2k rpm doesn't afflict the x35/x40ds. I forget the precise figures but IIRC the x35d makes 90% torque at 1,750 rpm or something mad like that.
Which reminds me, I really must look into a remap
Exactly this is so often overlooked - though I guess most diesels are not sequential. However when you have diesels today which would demolish an E39 M5 or be doing 10-10.5 second to 100mph in near 2 tonnes you have to pay attention. Which reminds me, I really must look into a remap
Personally I cannot wait to get my hands on a Tesla P85D - but need comfort with the infrastructure and would like to have say a 1,000 mile range. 7 seater great looks destroys F10 M5's and hunts down Lambos. Perfect family car - then get a clip 172sport track slag for the noise thrills
daemon said:
jamieduff1981 said:
If so, that looks like a fairly typical and frustrating diesel torque and power curve, fizzling out after 3000rpm and leaving you wondering mid-overtake whether it's best to put up with what you're not getting or change up a gear and hope that the increase in flywheel torque combined with taller gearing nets an overall improvement.
I have a 600lb.ft 5 cylinder diesel auto for daily business use. It's ok for a truck but surely nobody would argue it's what you'd want in a luxury car. The diesel suits the truck well because it's meant for towing heavy things slowly. It does not make for relaxed rapid progress.
I've had two modded e60 535ds putting out roughly 350BHP and 500lb/ft of torque.I have a 600lb.ft 5 cylinder diesel auto for daily business use. It's ok for a truck but surely nobody would argue it's what you'd want in a luxury car. The diesel suits the truck well because it's meant for towing heavy things slowly. It does not make for relaxed rapid progress.
I can assure you that when you pull out to overtake you are in no way wondering anything other than "holy s
t".And yes, they make perfect sense for relaxed rapid progress. Lots of torque low down and almost silent travel, yet sheer grunt when you want it.
Heres what acceleration in a f10 535d looks like - can you point me to any point where the driver is left "wondering" what to do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcednoo_gco
Edited by daemon on Sunday 19th April 10:46
t" territory by a long shot, and it's on par with the XF-S.There is a chasm between a couple of the premium brand 6 pot diesels and everything else, but for me at least it's still firmly second best to petrol.
We're not particularly low milage drivers. I've got no idea what our annual milage is these days as it's spread across a few cars but for example I commute 60 miles per day 5 days a week. Whatever I do I'm still filling up once a week. I've always filled up once a week. However I drive I still fill up once a week.
Based on all this talk about the diesel being more responsive than the 135i petrol, I think I'm very happy that Jaguar have just said "f
k it" to CO2 emissions and have continued to make responsive engines. The current BMW petrols must be really infuriating to drive enthusiastically if the throttle response worse than a diesel - even a good diesel.Welshbeef said:
You are incorrect
Diesel was not designed for that - instead Dr Diesel hoped it would mobilise the 2nd and 3rd world countries and that they can run on anything really. IE peanut oil etc. so a very cheap way to run an engine throughout the world.
It's output characteristics originally was N/A so chug chug chug low revs high output while using much less fuel a win win.
The terrible noise they used to make was down to the indirect injection this has moved to direct injection which has vastly decreased its noise. They have increased frequency and moved up to super high pressure injector rails which has reduced this further (oddly many people say the E92 M3 & E60 M5 sound very like a diesel at ide).
The engineers have essentially made the best diesels now have a Rev France up to 6k revs similar to most forced induction Petrols. They have also worked hard tomassivrlt amplify its character to make it a very useful tool for overtaking and it's true that on average your accessing a vastly higher % of its output than the petrol equivalent. So driving a diesel you are using more of its outright abilities more of the time than an identical powered petrol (thus they are quicker at times).
The sensation of surging does give those in the cabin a sense of hard acceleration - whereas in a petrol if your hitting Rev limit in 3rd your doing 100mph. Fine on private roads but that means you only have 1st gear to hit max power and 2nd gear or 3rd with some very short geared cars.
Fair, but my points around traditional diesels in unrefined states being most effective for their purpose still stands. As you said, they were originally very simple in design and incredibly cheap to run and maintain, unfortunately the same cannot be said nowadays. The old VAG 1.9tdi was far better "as a diesel" than its successor 2.0tdi. Interestingly the 1.9tdi was better on fuel in a like for like placement, it was replaced due to new emissions targets, hence back to my original point of modern diesels being overly complex and therefore not as effective as initially intended.Diesel was not designed for that - instead Dr Diesel hoped it would mobilise the 2nd and 3rd world countries and that they can run on anything really. IE peanut oil etc. so a very cheap way to run an engine throughout the world.
It's output characteristics originally was N/A so chug chug chug low revs high output while using much less fuel a win win.
The terrible noise they used to make was down to the indirect injection this has moved to direct injection which has vastly decreased its noise. They have increased frequency and moved up to super high pressure injector rails which has reduced this further (oddly many people say the E92 M3 & E60 M5 sound very like a diesel at ide).
The engineers have essentially made the best diesels now have a Rev France up to 6k revs similar to most forced induction Petrols. They have also worked hard tomassivrlt amplify its character to make it a very useful tool for overtaking and it's true that on average your accessing a vastly higher % of its output than the petrol equivalent. So driving a diesel you are using more of its outright abilities more of the time than an identical powered petrol (thus they are quicker at times).
The sensation of surging does give those in the cabin a sense of hard acceleration - whereas in a petrol if your hitting Rev limit in 3rd your doing 100mph. Fine on private roads but that means you only have 1st gear to hit max power and 2nd gear or 3rd with some very short geared cars.
jamieduff1981 said:
That's very impressive for a diesel. I wouldn't consider that "holy st" territory by a long shot, and it's on par with the XF-S.
There is a chasm between a couple of the premium brand 6 pot diesels and everything else, but for me at least it's still firmly second best to petrol.
We're not particularly low milage drivers. I've got no idea what our annual milage is these days as it's spread across a few cars but for example I commute 60 miles per day 5 days a week. Whatever I do I'm still filling up once a week. I've always filled up once a week. However I drive I still fill up once a week.
Based on all this talk about the diesel being more responsive than the 135i petrol, I think I'm very happy that Jaguar have just said "fk it" to CO2 emissions and have continued to make responsive engines. The current BMW petrols must be really infuriating to drive enthusiastically if the throttle response worse than a diesel - even a good diesel.
Bear in mind the video clip is of a standard F10 535d. A simple remap takes it to 350BHP and 500lb/ft of torque. Delimited they top out at around 173mph. Thats pretty much the case for any x35d engined variant in the last 10 years.t" territory by a long shot, and it's on par with the XF-S.There is a chasm between a couple of the premium brand 6 pot diesels and everything else, but for me at least it's still firmly second best to petrol.
We're not particularly low milage drivers. I've got no idea what our annual milage is these days as it's spread across a few cars but for example I commute 60 miles per day 5 days a week. Whatever I do I'm still filling up once a week. I've always filled up once a week. However I drive I still fill up once a week.
Based on all this talk about the diesel being more responsive than the 135i petrol, I think I'm very happy that Jaguar have just said "f
k it" to CO2 emissions and have continued to make responsive engines. The current BMW petrols must be really infuriating to drive enthusiastically if the throttle response worse than a diesel - even a good diesel.If you want linear power delivery, have a look at this clip of a mapped one....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVlZCU7Yoo
And again the beauty being you can have all that, AND it be in something than can be a limo when you need it to be or slip around town at 10mph.
BUT, as you say, not all diesels are like that, but then not all petrols are like your XF-S either
AM7 said:
Fair, but my points around traditional diesels in unrefined states being most effective for their purpose still stands. As you said, they were originally very simple in design and incredibly cheap to run and maintain, unfortunately the same cannot be said nowadays. The old VAG 1.9tdi was far better "as a diesel" than its successor 2.0tdi. Interestingly the 1.9tdi was better on fuel in a like for like placement, it was replaced due to new emissions targets, hence back to my original point of modern diesels being overly complex and therefore not as effective as initially intended.
And likewise, relative to the diesel v petrol debate, modern petrols - such as the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost - are overly complex and not as effective as initially intended.So as WelshBeef asked several pages ago - whats the difference between buying a highly boosted overly complex diesel car over a highly boosted overly complex petrol variant? You get a bit more economy still out of the diesel, but does anybody really want to be driving a 1.0 Ecoboost with 150K miles? How many turbos / flywheels / injectors / pumps will it have went through?
AM7 said:
Fair, but my points around traditional diesels in unrefined states being most effective for their purpose still stands. As you said, they were originally very simple in design and incredibly cheap to run and maintain, unfortunately the same cannot be said nowadays. The old VAG 1.9tdi was far better "as a diesel" than its successor 2.0tdi. Interestingly the 1.9tdi was better on fuel in a like for like placement, it was replaced due to new emissions targets, hence back to my original point of modern diesels being overly complex and therefore not as effective as initially intended.
The Pumpe-Duse engine was vastly superior to common rail Much more thermoally efficient - however there was a Betamax v Vhs moment. I had the 1.9 GT TDI PD 115 Golf model. It was mpg rated at 49.9mpg. That was laughably low - I hit an average on one tank of 74mph motorway speed. But I'd be mid 60's mpg all the time without trying.
Worst I ever saw was 48mpg
daemon said:
And likewise, relative to the diesel v petrol debate, modern petrols - such as the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost - are overly complex and not as effective as initially intended.
So as WelshBeef asked several pages ago - whats the difference between buying a highly boosted overly complex diesel car over a highly boosted overly complex petrol variant? You get a bit more economy still out of the diesel, but does anybody really want to be driving a 1.0 Ecoboost with 150K miles? How many turbos / flywheels / injectors / pumps will it have went through?
Thinking of it that way, you have a very good point indeed! Maybe it's down to my personal experience, I learned to drive in a 1.3cdti Corsa and it was soul destroying to say the least, I then went and bought a far older NA petrol 6 cylinder and that rejuvenated many feelings So as WelshBeef asked several pages ago - whats the difference between buying a highly boosted overly complex diesel car over a highly boosted overly complex petrol variant? You get a bit more economy still out of the diesel, but does anybody really want to be driving a 1.0 Ecoboost with 150K miles? How many turbos / flywheels / injectors / pumps will it have went through?
As for monster torque in modern German barges, that does absolutely nothing for me, so many different factors come together for an enjoyable driving experience (I do love high RPMs and noise). Fortunately I have peak torque at about 3.5k rpm and then peak power towards the redline, for me this is perfect.
I'm not against diesels, I just wouldn't have one as my sole car under normal conditions. The only possibility of me having a diesel would be if I had to do high annual mileage lets say 20/25k plus, and even then I'd find myself in an older less refined one (such as the VAG 1.9tdi) as it would do the job that I needed it to far better than others.
So yes, all down to personal experiences/preferences. Me, I love simple engines, mainly petrol!
Put it this way - I enjoy the performance a diesel offers be it economy ability to give high pace and be silent in most situations.
However I'd never dream of taking it to a track - I've not taken any of my own cars to a track so maybe a moot point anyway.
One idea I've been having for a little while is to buy a cheap Renault Clio Sport 172/182 and have it strictly for the track. Strip it out and just have an absolute ball with it. They are fantastic cars loads of performance handling noise for very little money really. Sure it's nippy rather than fast but ragging it to within an inch of its life on the track would be great fun and if it goes pop get another for shed money and sell the other one for spares.
However I'd never dream of taking it to a track - I've not taken any of my own cars to a track so maybe a moot point anyway.
One idea I've been having for a little while is to buy a cheap Renault Clio Sport 172/182 and have it strictly for the track. Strip it out and just have an absolute ball with it. They are fantastic cars loads of performance handling noise for very little money really. Sure it's nippy rather than fast but ragging it to within an inch of its life on the track would be great fun and if it goes pop get another for shed money and sell the other one for spares.
As far as I'm concerned, as a petrolhead, life's too short to worry that much about fuel savings (to then be negated by failing injectors, DPF's and the like). If I'm going to be throwing money at something then I sure as hell want it to be something I can properly enjoy.
I can see the point of a big diesel but as with Ross, not for me.
I can see the point of a big diesel but as with Ross, not for me.
I do most of my driving in old(ish) petrol Honda's because they suit us. However, I borrowed a diesel Skoda Yeti recently and got 63mpg (twice what any of the Hondas with do, except the motorbike) and I've just spotted in the best lease deal a link from a link where a brand new Yeti is available for £230 a month based on 20,000 miles a year over 24 months. As a firm petrol fan I'm concerned that all of a sudden diesel looks like it might be a good idea!
daemon said:
jamieduff1981 said:
That's very impressive for a diesel. I wouldn't consider that "holy st" territory by a long shot, and it's on par with the XF-S.
There is a chasm between a couple of the premium brand 6 pot diesels and everything else, but for me at least it's still firmly second best to petrol.
We're not particularly low milage drivers. I've got no idea what our annual milage is these days as it's spread across a few cars but for example I commute 60 miles per day 5 days a week. Whatever I do I'm still filling up once a week. I've always filled up once a week. However I drive I still fill up once a week.
Based on all this talk about the diesel being more responsive than the 135i petrol, I think I'm very happy that Jaguar have just said "fk it" to CO2 emissions and have continued to make responsive engines. The current BMW petrols must be really infuriating to drive enthusiastically if the throttle response worse than a diesel - even a good diesel.
Bear in mind the video clip is of a standard F10 535d. A simple remap takes it to 350BHP and 500lb/ft of torque. Delimited they top out at around 173mph. Thats pretty much the case for any x35d engined variant in the last 10 years.t" territory by a long shot, and it's on par with the XF-S.There is a chasm between a couple of the premium brand 6 pot diesels and everything else, but for me at least it's still firmly second best to petrol.
We're not particularly low milage drivers. I've got no idea what our annual milage is these days as it's spread across a few cars but for example I commute 60 miles per day 5 days a week. Whatever I do I'm still filling up once a week. I've always filled up once a week. However I drive I still fill up once a week.
Based on all this talk about the diesel being more responsive than the 135i petrol, I think I'm very happy that Jaguar have just said "f
k it" to CO2 emissions and have continued to make responsive engines. The current BMW petrols must be really infuriating to drive enthusiastically if the throttle response worse than a diesel - even a good diesel.If you want linear power delivery, have a look at this clip of a mapped one....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVlZCU7Yoo
And again the beauty being you can have all that, AND it be in something than can be a limo when you need it to be or slip around town at 10mph.
BUT, as you say, not all diesels are like that, but then not all petrols are like your XF-S either
The next tier of brands down which used to be called mainstream are lagging a bit behind. They're about on par for consumption and emissions but not on delivery it seems.
Monkeylegend said:
Loudy McFatass said:
Monkeylegend said:
I won't be buying another diesel. My latest has only done 267k miles in 4 years, has needed to be serviced every 18k miles, the water pump sprung a leak at 218k miles, I mean only 218k miles, Mercedes should be ashamed.
I have only managed to average 52mpg over 267k miles, and it never allows me to top up the oil between services. It cruises quietly at 75mph, I even have to tell my customers it's a diesel, how dare Mercedes make a diesel that runs so quietly and economically at cruising speeds pulling over 1600 kgs, plus several suitcases and very often 5 people.
I can't understand how Mercedes have got it so wrong, I mean the DPF should have gone kaput, the fuel pump should have gone kaput, the EGR should have gone kaput, the injectors should have the black death, at least one of the turbo's should have blown up by now. I will definitely be sending an e-mail to somebody high up to express my displeasure.
Yep, definitely the last diesel I will be buying, this one will only probably get me to 500k miles or so in the next few years, then after that another 500k. It's just not good enough.
Diesel, don't you just hate them.
Oh I forgot to mention the torque
Which model and engine is that!?I have only managed to average 52mpg over 267k miles, and it never allows me to top up the oil between services. It cruises quietly at 75mph, I even have to tell my customers it's a diesel, how dare Mercedes make a diesel that runs so quietly and economically at cruising speeds pulling over 1600 kgs, plus several suitcases and very often 5 people.
I can't understand how Mercedes have got it so wrong, I mean the DPF should have gone kaput, the fuel pump should have gone kaput, the EGR should have gone kaput, the injectors should have the black death, at least one of the turbo's should have blown up by now. I will definitely be sending an e-mail to somebody high up to express my displeasure.
Yep, definitely the last diesel I will be buying, this one will only probably get me to 500k miles or so in the next few years, then after that another 500k. It's just not good enough.
Diesel, don't you just hate them.
Oh I forgot to mention the torque
Edited by Monkeylegend on Saturday 18th April 22:24
daemon said:
AM7 said:
Fair, but my points around traditional diesels in unrefined states being most effective for their purpose still stands. As you said, they were originally very simple in design and incredibly cheap to run and maintain, unfortunately the same cannot be said nowadays. The old VAG 1.9tdi was far better "as a diesel" than its successor 2.0tdi. Interestingly the 1.9tdi was better on fuel in a like for like placement, it was replaced due to new emissions targets, hence back to my original point of modern diesels being overly complex and therefore not as effective as initially intended.
And likewise, relative to the diesel v petrol debate, modern petrols - such as the Ford 1.0 Ecoboost - are overly complex and not as effective as initially intended.So as WelshBeef asked several pages ago - whats the difference between buying a highly boosted overly complex diesel car over a highly boosted overly complex petrol variant? You get a bit more economy still out of the diesel, but does anybody really want to be driving a 1.0 Ecoboost with 150K miles? How many turbos / flywheels / injectors / pumps will it have went through?
The difference is:
1) Soot - Diesels clog up turbos and DPFs.
2) Particles - Petrols produce relatively few but GDI's have more so GPF's are only required on GDI cars and unlike diesels there are no complex regenerations required, for most regeneration is constant and there is no build up of soot or ash. Plus as a bonus they can actually replace silencers.
3) The way diesels make their power - kills DMF's (as well as vibration causing issues).
4) Cylinder pressure - far higher which means direct injection pressures are far higher (15000PSI up to 44000PSI against ~3000PSI) which means injectors are both far more expensive and more fragile and the same goes for pumps.
While petrol cars have the same "technology" the different way the engines work mean that the technology is subject to different stress and you cannot tar petrol car technology with the diesel brush.
Fastdruid said:
How many times do I have to repeat myself when both you and welshbeef bring up the same crap.
The difference is:
1) Soot - Diesels clog up turbos and DPFs.
2) Particles - Petrols produce relatively few but GDI's have more so GPF's are only required on GDI cars and unlike diesels there are no complex regenerations required, for most regeneration is constant and there is no build up of soot or ash. Plus as a bonus they can actually replace silencers.
3) The way diesels make their power - kills DMF's (as well as vibration causing issues).
4) Cylinder pressure - far higher which means direct injection pressures are far higher (15000PSI up to 44000PSI against ~3000PSI) which means injectors are both far more expensive and more fragile and the same goes for pumps.
While petrol cars have the same "technology" the different way the engines work mean that the technology is subject to different stress and you cannot tar petrol car technology with the diesel brush.
What's the failure rate per 1,000 vehicles on DPFs/injectors/turbos - as in way before the expected useful economic life? The difference is:
1) Soot - Diesels clog up turbos and DPFs.
2) Particles - Petrols produce relatively few but GDI's have more so GPF's are only required on GDI cars and unlike diesels there are no complex regenerations required, for most regeneration is constant and there is no build up of soot or ash. Plus as a bonus they can actually replace silencers.
3) The way diesels make their power - kills DMF's (as well as vibration causing issues).
4) Cylinder pressure - far higher which means direct injection pressures are far higher (15000PSI up to 44000PSI against ~3000PSI) which means injectors are both far more expensive and more fragile and the same goes for pumps.
While petrol cars have the same "technology" the different way the engines work mean that the technology is subject to different stress and you cannot tar petrol car technology with the diesel brush.
Fastdruid said:
1) Soot - Diesels clog up turbos and DPFs.
2) Particles - Petrols produce relatively few but GDI's have more so GPF's are only required on GDI cars and unlike diesels there are no complex regenerations required, for most regeneration is constant and there is no build up of soot or ash. Plus as a bonus they can actually replace silencers.
3) The way diesels make their power - kills DMF's (as well as vibration causing issues).
4) Cylinder pressure - far higher which means direct injection pressures are far higher (15000PSI up to 44000PSI against ~3000PSI) which means injectors are both far more expensive and more fragile and the same goes for pumps.
1) From the next round of legislation beyond EU6c where particulate regs will change again, filling GPFs up will be a problem for petrol engines where high filtration efficiencies will be a must.2) Particles - Petrols produce relatively few but GDI's have more so GPF's are only required on GDI cars and unlike diesels there are no complex regenerations required, for most regeneration is constant and there is no build up of soot or ash. Plus as a bonus they can actually replace silencers.
3) The way diesels make their power - kills DMF's (as well as vibration causing issues).
4) Cylinder pressure - far higher which means direct injection pressures are far higher (15000PSI up to 44000PSI against ~3000PSI) which means injectors are both far more expensive and more fragile and the same goes for pumps.
2) As gasolines improve in thermal efficiency (faster burn rates - less exhaust gas temperature) then the engine will have to be put under increasing load to regenerate. This is easy to implement with an auto gearbox but less so with a manual. Also, GPFs are not a requirement at any level, only if the engine out particulates cannot meet the relevant legislation. To my knowledge, only Mercedes have a gasoline engine in production with a GPF thus far.
3) There are any number of gasoline engines capable of producing 20+ bar BMEP from 1600 rpm or less - this is just as bad as any diesel in terms of DMF loading.
4) Injection pressure is a function of refinement and emissions, not solely combustion pressure. Gasoline injection pressures will increase in the next 3 years, and more so beyond - in excess of 500 bar in the near future.
Edited by zeppelin101 on Monday 20th April 07:38
Loudy McFatass said:
Monkeylegend said:
Loudy McFatass said:
Monkeylegend said:
I won't be buying another diesel. My latest has only done 267k miles in 4 years, has needed to be serviced every 18k miles, the water pump sprung a leak at 218k miles, I mean only 218k miles, Mercedes should be ashamed.
I have only managed to average 52mpg over 267k miles, and it never allows me to top up the oil between services. It cruises quietly at 75mph, I even have to tell my customers it's a diesel, how dare Mercedes make a diesel that runs so quietly and economically at cruising speeds pulling over 1600 kgs, plus several suitcases and very often 5 people.
I can't understand how Mercedes have got it so wrong, I mean the DPF should have gone kaput, the fuel pump should have gone kaput, the EGR should have gone kaput, the injectors should have the black death, at least one of the turbo's should have blown up by now. I will definitely be sending an e-mail to somebody high up to express my displeasure.
Yep, definitely the last diesel I will be buying, this one will only probably get me to 500k miles or so in the next few years, then after that another 500k. It's just not good enough.
Diesel, don't you just hate them.
Oh I forgot to mention the torque
Which model and engine is that!?I have only managed to average 52mpg over 267k miles, and it never allows me to top up the oil between services. It cruises quietly at 75mph, I even have to tell my customers it's a diesel, how dare Mercedes make a diesel that runs so quietly and economically at cruising speeds pulling over 1600 kgs, plus several suitcases and very often 5 people.
I can't understand how Mercedes have got it so wrong, I mean the DPF should have gone kaput, the fuel pump should have gone kaput, the EGR should have gone kaput, the injectors should have the black death, at least one of the turbo's should have blown up by now. I will definitely be sending an e-mail to somebody high up to express my displeasure.
Yep, definitely the last diesel I will be buying, this one will only probably get me to 500k miles or so in the next few years, then after that another 500k. It's just not good enough.
Diesel, don't you just hate them.
Oh I forgot to mention the torque
Edited by Monkeylegend on Saturday 18th April 22:24
And that's the rub, if you want mega miles diesel is the way to go. My car is used most days and usually does a minimum 220 miles per trip so none of the usual issues associated with low mileage usage.
I will admit though that when I buy another fun car it will be petrol
Welshbeef said:
One idea I've been having for a little while is to buy a cheap Renault Clio Sport 172/182 and have it strictly for the track. Strip it out and just have an absolute ball with it. They are fantastic cars loads of performance handling noise for very little money really. Sure it's nippy rather than fast but ragging it to within an inch of its life on the track would be great fun and if it goes pop get another for shed money and sell the other one for spares.
That's exactly what I do. Clio 182 for track/fun B road blasts and an Alpina D3 for everything else. I do 20k private miles a year so the D3 is an ideal car for that without being boring and the 182 covers all the other bases.Horses for courses.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff