Do you need anything more than a 320d?
Discussion
RobM77 said:
That depends what you mean by 'like for like'. Do you mean capacity? Do you mean the energy released from each unit of fuel? Diesel is inherently more efficient than petrol.
Supercars from 20 years ago might be stretching it (Mclaren F1 perhaps?), but certainly something like a 911 or NSX from back then has now been surpassed by the likes of the 335d or similar. It's a very different thing though - give me an NSX anyday, I don't care how fast the 335d is!!
335d is a pretty extreme example. And you then compare it to a normally aspirated base 911 (which has never been about speed). Supercars from 20 years ago might be stretching it (Mclaren F1 perhaps?), but certainly something like a 911 or NSX from back then has now been surpassed by the likes of the 335d or similar. It's a very different thing though - give me an NSX anyday, I don't care how fast the 335d is!!
Most diesel cars are still very slow when you take into account the capacity of the engine, the cost of the car / engine and the power available for a similar capacity/ price in petrol cars. MPG is all diesel has ever had going for it.
RobM77 said:
That depends what you mean by 'like for like'. Do you mean capacity? Do you mean the energy released from each unit of fuel? Diesel is inherently more efficient than petrol.
Capacity and induction type really, just sick of hearing people who think diesels are somehow inherently faster than petrols, usually by comparing the low tuned 2L N/A petrol in their old Mondeo with the forced induction diesel in their leased A4 (and a lot of that is "felt" rather than actual speed)
A 2L turbodiesel is still not as fast as a 20 year old 2L petrol turbo, let alone a modern one. The fact that we now make cars go quite fast with enormous and complex diesel engines where we didn't before is purely down to the fact that the market has been created for them. I'm not sure what power a 335d makes but I suspect it's nowhere near as much as a 20 year old twin turbo 3 litre petrol engine could make. I'm not even convinced a 335d would outpace an NSX in a straight line, despite the NSX being actually pretty slow in it's class due to the "gentleman's agreement" limiting power outputs in Japan.
I see no point comparing cars of any kind from different decades. Cars were probably less powerful back then but they were also lighter and designed for a different time using different materials. Only people justifying diesels are diesel owners; the rest of us think they're a lazy, unimaginative choice. Get in a proper petrol engined car and you'll instantly know what I mean.
T0MMY said:
Ares said:
Modern diesels are putting out power and performance that was reserved for (near) supercars 20 years ago.
Well let's not get ahead of ourselves here, like for like diesel engine performance can't match petrol engine performance, even from 20 years ago, let alone when talking about supercars.I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
Edited by Ares on Wednesday 8th July 18:30
cerb4.5lee said:
ORD said:
MPG is all diesel has ever had going for it.
Absolutely spot on and the range isn't bad...everything else about them is truly hateful and that's being kind. T0MMY said:
Playing devil's advocate here as I hate diesels, but I can see the attraction of some of their other characteristics for people who aren't what you might call keen drivers. There are an awful lot of people that wouldn't ever rev their cars past 4,000rpm, whatever fuel it consumes, and would be horrified at having to change down a gear or two to overtake. A petrol engine driven as sedately as many people do feels pretty flat compared to a turbodiesel.
Or for some people they just prefer them and are STILL keen drivers? Maybe some keen drivers just see there is more to life than getting past 6,000rpm just to get performance out of their car? Maybe some keen drivers don't want the peaky nature of a 8-10,000rpm screamer in the car that for 90% of the car is a family car?Different stokes/Different folks.
T0MMY said:
cerb4.5lee said:
ORD said:
MPG is all diesel has ever had going for it.
Absolutely spot on and the range isn't bad...everything else about them is truly hateful and that's being kind. Ares said:
T0MMY said:
Playing devil's advocate here as I hate diesels, but I can see the attraction of some of their other characteristics for people who aren't what you might call keen drivers. There are an awful lot of people that wouldn't ever rev their cars past 4,000rpm, whatever fuel it consumes, and would be horrified at having to change down a gear or two to overtake. A petrol engine driven as sedately as many people do feels pretty flat compared to a turbodiesel.
Or for some people they just prefer them and are STILL keen drivers? Maybe some keen drivers just see there is more to life than getting past 6,000rpm just to get performance out of their car? Maybe some keen drivers don't want the peaky nature of a 8-10,000rpm screamer in the car that for 90% of the car is a family car?Different stokes/Different folks.
Ares said:
My 3.0l turbo oil burner kicks out 380bhp and 540b ft. What 20yr old 3.0 non-supercar petrol engine manages that?
I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
Off the top of my head, an old Supra engine could quite easily develop more than that, even 30 years ago let alone 20, it may not have done as standard, again due to the appetite at the time for mega power in Japan but it was easily capable. Various Skylines too, and from less than 3 litres (e.g. Nismo 400R).
As for the torque figure, we'd need that at the wheels to make a meaningful comparison!
tgr said:
RobM77 said:
It's a bizarre thought that the 2 litre diesel now has almost the same power as my first E36 325i had all those years ago, and comfortably more than the E30 325!
Sure, but power-to-weight?Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job
Ares said:
Or for some people they just prefer them and are STILL keen drivers? Maybe some keen drivers just see there is more to life than getting past 6,000rpm just to get performance out of their car? Maybe some keen drivers don't want the peaky nature of a 8-10,000rpm screamer in the car that for 90% of the car is a family car?
Different stokes/Different folks.
I can't argue really as we can all define what a keen driver should like but to me that reads like saying "Maybe some keen drivers don't like a car that feels nervous on the road because it's got involving handling and maybe some keen drivers don't want to have to change gear or use a clutch".Different stokes/Different folks.
In other words it's like saying "some keen drivers don't like the things keen drivers like".
Patrick Bateman said:
There are plenty of petrol engines that can shift without having to rev them to death.
I think that is the rub and if you compare a 3 Litre Twin Turbo petrol to a 3 Litre Twin Turbo Diesel other than better range/economy why the hell would you choose diesel when the petrol has the low down shove to pretty much match the diesel anyway.The petrol sounds better(BMW`s obviously not because its all through the speakers so the diesel sounds the same anyway) the petrol will be smoother and has more revs to play with as well and doesn't sound like a tractor on start up and idle.
Plus you can open a window and listen to the nice petrol engine whereas if you do that in the diesel you keep wondering if there is a tractor/bus/lorry following you.
Ares said:
My 3.0l turbo oil burner kicks out 380bhp and 540b ft. What 20yr old 3.0 non-supercar petrol engine manages that?
I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
American V8s have been making more than that for donkeys years. My LSA-based V8 makes 133hp/litre with only one cam shaft and a bit of forced induction in a 50 yo design. I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
Edited by Ares on Wednesday 8th July 18:30
It also makes 380hp at about 2000rpm and revs to 7k rpm. So about 830hp. In other words 'kiss my guns'. I'm off to buy some protein shakes.
wormus said:
Ares said:
My 3.0l turbo oil burner kicks out 380bhp and 540b ft. What 20yr old 3.0 non-supercar petrol engine manages that?
I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
American V8s have been making more than that for donkeys years. My LSA-based V8 makes 133hp/litre with only one cam shaft and a bit of forced induction in a 50 yo design. I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
Edited by Ares on Wednesday 8th July 18:30
It also makes 380hp at about 2000rpm and revs to 7k rpm. So about 830hp. In other words 'kiss my guns'. I'm off to buy some protein shakes.
Welshbeef said:
Well my 535d pumps out 104bhp/ltr - once it's remapped it will be up to 127bhp/ltr and a 5,500 red line.
Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job
To be fair though, in the context of the diesel vs petrol power debate, that specific output would not be remotely high for a turbocharged petrol engine (even 20 years ago to go back to that argument). It would be closer to a very good n/a figure for a petrol, in fact my MNR makes about 150bhp/litre without forced induction but maybe that's cheatingOnce remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job
T0MMY said:
Ares said:
My 3.0l turbo oil burner kicks out 380bhp and 540b ft. What 20yr old 3.0 non-supercar petrol engine manages that?
I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?
Off the top of my head, an old Supra engine could quite easily develop more than that, even 30 years ago let alone 20, it may not have done as standard, again due to the appetite at the time for mega power in Japan but it was easily capable. Various Skylines too, and from less than 3 litres (e.g. Nismo 400R).
As for the torque figure, we'd need that at the wheels to make a meaningful comparison!
Yes could could tune it to X00/X000bhp (and it would last minutes.) F1 was getting 1500bhp from 1.4l in the 70s.... It's extreme.
But the comment was that even diesels nowadays put out the kind of power that was (near) supercar territory just 20 yrs ago.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff