RE: WTCC SEAT Leon TDI

[RacingPete]

mainaman said:

Unfortunately Seat's 2.0 litres turbodiesel blows even the high-revving 2.0 petrol engines out of the track.
...
Diesel is abomination,but it works,when the rules are rigged.

Yvan Muller said:

If you look at the sector times of us compared to the BMW, the BMW was quicker on many tracks; it's just we did all our quick sector times on the same lap. We worked better as a team through the season.

He was also slightly miffed that the turbo on the SEAT's will be 1mm smaller this year which he reckoned was around 25bhp loss in power... so will be interesting to see if they stay competitive losing that advantage. Though a petrol SEAT Leon did win a WTCC round this year too, he was on dry tyres on the front and wet tyres at the rear!

[E21_Ross]

collateral said:

Muzzlehatch said:

It still doesn't change the fact that a diesel engine is heavier and produces far less power than a similarly aspirated petrol engine of the same displacement.

They've even had to put in top secret suspension because of the extra weight.

When will this politickoballs end?

IIRC from the A3 brochure I was flicking through the other day the weight differences these days are pretty small.

Do you think they would have allowed pictures to have been taken of the suspension if the engine was petrol instead of derv?

they don't produce that much less power, for instance bmw 335i (turbo charged) 306bhp, same capacity 335d 286bhp. 335d oodles more torque. why is it the fuel of satan? satan seems to be winning a few races these days.

Edited by E21_Ross on Wednesday 11th February 10:21

[ciderman4]

Muzzlehatch said:

mainaman said:

Diesel is abomination,but it works, when the rules are rigged.

And that's the point - it has to be rigged, as petrol engines ar better suited to the purpose. The only reason they are being "rigged" is to satisfy various political agenda. The great unwashed see a dag-dag win Le Mans and immediately think that diesels are "faster", when in fact that is not the case.

It amazes me the number of so called purists that want to get on their 'high horse' with regard to the petrol vs diesel debate. Both engines have their pros and cons and are purely a matter of individual taste.
My last two cars have been turbo diesels and as far as I'm concerned, that's the way forward. Much more low down torque and power and consequently better driveability, without having to rev the nuts off it.
I don't really give a s**t whether a petrol engine red lines at 9000 revs and makes loads of noise. That's not my cup of tea.
Anyway, that's my two penneth for what it's worth.

[Rarst]

Rigged? Nah

Of course there are adjustments when engines are powered differently just like there are when N/A turbo and supercharged cars compete on the same grid. If there's a fault with the rules then it's hardly the manufacturers fault for exploiting it.

I didnt like the (lack of) sound of the Le Mans Audi TDi but I appreciated the engineering feat. It's probably the only thing that's keeping VAG in WTCC anyway, I'd rather a diesel than another gap on the grid.

[Muzzlehatch]

ciderman4 said:

It amazes me the number of so called purists that want to get on their 'high horse' with regard to the petrol vs diesel debate. Both engines have their pros and cons and are purely a matter of individual taste.

There's no "high horse", it's about being honest about a item being suitable for an application. Petrol engines are better suited to motor racing than diesel due to the longer and higher power curve achievable - you can't escape that fact. Nobody would be using diesel at Le Mans if there were no further incentive to do so.

I admire they way diesel technology has come on, but similarly petrol engines have also developed massively over that same time period. For road use I agree, it's a matter of taste mixed with the financial/tax benefits, but for motorsport it's about winning, and the rules have been twisted in order to enable an inappropriate engine to compete where it otherwise wouldn't see which way the competition went.

[astrsxi77]

Tell me; does anyone on here who drives a Diesel actually drive it because they want to? Did you buy it or select it from the company car scheme because you had a desire for a Diesel car, or was it because of the financial incentives, partially created by misguided CO2bks politics?

I should imagine that VAG wouldn't even consider racing Diesels if they hadn't been forced to rely on Diesel car sales for survival.

[ciderman4]

Muzzlehatch said:

ciderman4 said:

It amazes me the number of so called purists that want to get on their 'high horse' with regard to the petrol vs diesel debate. Both engines have their pros and cons and are purely a matter of individual taste.

There's no "high horse", it's about being honest about a item being suitable for an application. Petrol engines are better suited to motor racing than diesel due to the longer and higher power curve achievable - you can't escape that fact. Nobody would be using diesel at Le Mans if there were no further incentive to do so.

I admire they way diesel technology has come on, but similarly petrol engines have also developed massively over that same time period. For road use I agree, it's a matter of taste mixed with the financial/tax benefits, but for motorsport it's about winning, and the rules have been twisted in order to enable an inappropriate engine to compete where it otherwise wouldn't see which way the competition went.

I think that it's a pretty pointless argument really. Can't see a problem with allowing different engine types being allowed to compete in WTCC etc. There are specific rules that have been introduced for turbo diesel engines. It's not a level playing field anyway with different budgets, weight handicaps etc. If you want a level playing field then concentrate on A1 or Formula 3.
Everybody knows the fact that higher and longer power curves are achievable with petrol engines.
As far as technological advancements are concerned, in my opinion, diesel technology over the last 10 years or so has outstripped petrol.

[longblackcoat]

astrsxi77 said:

Tell me; does anyone on here who drives a Diesel actually drive it because they want to? Did you buy it or select it from the company car scheme because you had a desire for a Diesel car, or was it because of the financial incentives, partially created by misguided CO2bks politics?

I should imagine that VAG wouldn't even consider racing Diesels if they hadn't been forced to rely on Diesel car sales for survival.

.

OK, I'll bite.

I genuinely like torquey engines - a big saloon with a lot of instant low-down power suits me very well. Thing is though, a big TDI does it better than the petrol version. Try the 4.2TDI Audi A8 versus the 6.0 petrol and it's the diesel which feels the most muscular, with the petrol engine having to drop a couple of gears to make the same passing manoevres. And although it's not a straight comparison, I preferred the 535D to the current M5, heresy though that may be to some.

Can't accept "misguided CO2bks"......I like a fast powerful car which can also do 30+mpg. I really can't accept mid-teens fuel consumption on an everyday car, which is what's happened when I've had V8s in the past. That's not CO2 nonsense, it's just sense to use less fuel if you can.

[bales]

Muzzlehatch said:

The great unwashed see a dag-dag win Le Mans and immediately think that diesels are "faster", when in fact that is not the case.

What always get me about this whole silly argument is that to the majority of people who aren't into cars and just use them for everyday transport diesels are quicker.

That can hardly be argued with and it is why they are so popular, you can get big petrol engine overtaking thump (over a limited rev-range) but with mpg that a petrol can't hope to achieve. This is what the majority of people seem to want which is why they sell so well.

I just don't see the point in this whole argument, we all know on here that petrol cars need revving and aslong as you use the gears petrol cars will be quicker, but to the large proportion who drive everyday and want to overtake a car, the fact that they can put their foot down in 4th and overtake effortlessly without dropping gears is what makes them quick cars and so 'suited' to road driving...

The whole comparing n/a race cars to FI diesel is again pointless as you can't compare them like to like, what difference does it make if a n/a diesel is rubbish, you would never compare them equally for that very reason.

If anything dare I say it would it not make racing more exciting to have a mixture of different engine types with such different power delivery characteristics...aslong as they get the equivalency rules sorted so there isn't and particular advantage over the space of a lap I think that its actually a good thing.

[Muzzlehatch]

My take on it is this: the political lobbyists want us to drive diesel road cars because "on paper" it will help them to achieve lower CO2 outputs and meet their Eurocratic targets.

Therefore, manufacturers need to sell more diesel cars, and a good way to do that is to send a strong message to the punters that diesels can win motor races against petrol cars. What they don't say is that the rules are heavily stacked in their favour, otherwise the diesel message may not work.

It would be very hard to disagree that the main reason manufacturers are entering diesels in motorsport is because it helps them to sell more diesel road cars; not because they think diesel is better suited to the application of motor racing.

The preference for having a long-legged economical cruiser is a different matter.

[DJC]

Muzzlehatch said:

My take on it is this: the political lobbyists want us to drive diesel road cars because "on paper" it will help them to achieve lower CO2 outputs and meet their Eurocratic targets.

Therefore, manufacturers need to sell more diesel cars, and a good way to do that is to send a strong message to the punters that diesels can win motor races against petrol cars. What they don't say is that the rules are heavily stacked in their favour, otherwise the diesel message may not work.

It would be very hard to disagree that the main reason manufacturers are entering diesels in motorsport is because it helps them to sell more diesel road cars; not because they think diesel is better suited to the application of motor racing.

The preference for having a long-legged economical cruiser is a different matter.

Eh?

Ppl arent buying TDIs because of what politicial lobbyists tell them. They arent buying them because of CO2...outside of company car buyers nbody either gives a crap or knows what Co2 their cars produces. What *does* motivate your private punter is the mpg figure, that and that alone is what is driving TDi sales. Suddenly you get your car returning you 50mpg whilst being able to cruise at 80mph on the motorway and it is still practical, cheap and easy to drive and has overtaking ability.

That makes an almost unbeatable proposition to most punters. Hell im a car geek and it makes massive sense to me which is why we only run one car now...a Fabia 1.9TDi.

Ppl dont care about Co2. They never have done, they never will, they care about £.

[orb666]

I've owned a SEAT Cupra petrol and now run a SEAT FR diesel - both have around the same BHP (180 petrol, 170 diesel) but the driving experience is very different.
After running the 2 for over 30k each and totally taking away the lower CO2/Tax advantage and the better MPG of the derv I would buy another diesel in a heartbeat - it is simply a better all round car to drive.
Believe me I am a PETROL head through and through and my drag car is a petrol but you've olny got to look at the way that diesels are encroaching on motor sports to see that there has to be benefits from burning this fuel - damn there's even a class for then in top flight drag racing in the US with cars running 7 second qtrs!!! http://www.dhraonline.com/home_0.shtml?page=Home

Luckily I'm not one of those who "Fear Change".....

Orb

[Muzzlehatch]

I missed a paragraph in my previous post. Company car taxation is far more favourable to diesels (based on the political reasons given above), which adds enormous weight to that argument.

In the grand scheme of things (due to higher fuel costs) there isn't a great deal of saving on getting a diesel unless you do high mileage.

Apologies, this wasn't meant to be a PvD fight per se, it was meant to be an explanation as to why diesels get a disproportionate advantage in motorsport.

[XitUp]

Muzzlehatch said:

It would be very hard to disagree that the main reason manufacturers are entering diesels in motorsport is because it helps them to sell more diesel road cars; not because they think diesel is better suited to the application of motor racing.

And you don't think they enter petrol cars into motor sport to sell more petrol cars?

[Muzzlehatch]

XitUp said:

Muzzlehatch said:

It would be very hard to disagree that the main reason manufacturers are entering diesels in motorsport is because it helps them to sell more diesel road cars; not because they think diesel is better suited to the application of motor racing.

And you don't think they enter petrol cars into motor sport to sell more petrol cars?

That's an interesting point. But I don't think so. Manufacturers enter petrol cars to sell more cars (i.e. their "brand"), irrespective of fuelling. But now that diesel is high on the political agenda (as mentioned earler), it's aimed at specifically selling Diesel cars.

[Dr Imran T]

Muzzlehatch said:

ciderman4 said:

It amazes me the number of so called purists that want to get on their 'high horse' with regard to the petrol vs diesel debate. Both engines have their pros and cons and are purely a matter of individual taste.

There's no "high horse", it's about being honest about a item being suitable for an application. Petrol engines are better suited to motor racing than diesel due to the longer and higher power curve achievable - you can't escape that fact. Nobody would be using diesel at Le Mans if there were no further incentive to do so.

I admire they way diesel technology has come on, but similarly petrol engines have also developed massively over that same time period. For road use I agree, it's a matter of taste mixed with the financial/tax benefits, but for motorsport it's about winning, and the rules have been twisted in order to enable an inappropriate engine to compete where it otherwise wouldn't see which way the competition went.

Some good points there. I know the ACO rules are in favour of diesel cars.. the petrol cars at Le mans are at quite a disadvantage. I believe the ACO are trying to re-address the balance a little but we will have to wait and see if this makes it a more level playing field.
I do think that motorsport needs to use diesels more and more as or cars that have better/greener credentials. Having seen the diesel beasts are Le Mans for the last few years I was rather impressed, although I do miss the 'earth shaking' noise of a highly tuned V10

[collateral]

The oft maligned LMP-1 rules - here

I'm not really seeing where the outrage comes from. Any manufacturer could make a 4L petrol boost monster if they felt like it

[Muzzlehatch]

collateral said:

The oft maligned LMP-1 rules - here

I'm not really seeing where the outrage comes from. Any manufacturer could make a 4L petrol boost monster if they felt like it

That's Wiki for you. LMP1 2008 regs...

4.0 litre petrol:
32.4mm inlet restrictors and 1.67bar boost limit

5.5 litre diesel:
39.9mm inlet restrictors and 2.94bar boost limit

[collateral]

Muzzlehatch said:

collateral said:

The oft maligned LMP-1 rules - here

I'm not really seeing where the outrage comes from. Any manufacturer could make a 4L petrol boost monster if they felt like it

That's Wiki for you. LMP1 2008 regs...

4.0 litre petrol:
32.4mm inlet restrictors and 1.67bar boost limit

5.5 litre diesel:
39.9mm inlet restrictors and 2.94bar boost limit

Fair play, it did smell rather simplified.

24psi vs 42 is a fair amount. Is there any maths for the theoretical max hp/litre?

[XitUp]

Do the diesel cars still have to have a smaller fuel tank?

I think they should make the engine sizes, restrictors and fuel tanks the same.