RE: WTCC SEAT Leon TDI

[XitUp]

All this is about road cars and the topic is race cars, but still...

Dilemna said:

Is it so bad diesel engine cars now perform better and are more popular than their petrol variants? I am really pleased that SEAT/VW have been so successful with the Leon TDI. It means all maufacturers (BMW, Audi, Alfa....Porsche) have all raised their game on diesel engine refinement, performance, economy and cleanliness which has got to be better for the wider motoring public and the environment. If the engines weren't any good then no one would buy them with or without tax breaks and cheaper running costs. The fact is the modern diesel engine has raised the standard against the petrol engine. The petrol engine brigade have to respond but it is difficult to see how they will do this given the propensity of the petrol engine to guzzle fuel. I'm sure steam powered cars felt the same when the first combustion engines came along. I know for a fact that I could not afford to run a comparable high performance 2 litre petrol engine of my car. It's a no brainer when diesel engines give economy of 50-55 mpg day in day out against 20-27mpg if you're lucky with a comparable output 2.0l petrol engine. To get same economy 50-55mpg using a petrol engine one would have to run a 1.0 litre Micra or equivalent and scream it's nuts off when the car had any load to get it to move. I changed to diesel in 2001 and have not looked back although I still have 1998cc Lancia Delta Integrale, but only run this occasionally as the cost of fuel to go anywhere is like taking out a 2nd mortgage. See petrol engines for what they are - great but old technology.

As far as I can see hydrogen/electric powered cars are the way forward. The Japanese are pushing this re Honda. Diesel happens to be the engine of the moment.

That's my mile in this debate.

Alex Dilemna

Direct injection, cylinder deactivation, LPG/CNG, etc.

And hydrogen is a scam, but there are plenty of other topics on here about that.

Edited by XitUp on Friday 13th February 17:26

[Dilemna]

And on the track diesel engines are are currently dominant as they don't use as much fuel as petrol engines so spend less time in the pits filling up.....
In a race outright bhp power isn't everyting unless you are racing over such a short distance such as to get to the fuel pump. I read that Audi's V10 diesel engine they used for Le Mans does about 18mpg. The other traditional petrol mothers do like 2 mpg. 'Am I right? So that makes for a lot more fuel stops meaning slowing down from race pace, coming to a halt, refilling and restarting all costing valuable time.

Is a hyrdrogen fuel cell car really a scam? How do you mean? Could you please explain? It seems a pretty good idea as hydrogen is so abundant in the atmosphere.

Alex Dilemna.

Edited by Dilemna on Friday 13th February 18:06

Edited by Dilemna on Friday 13th February 18:07

[XitUp]

Did you not read the thread?
The LM regs favor diesels, they can use bigger engines and restrictors. Not really fair is it?
Although they do have to use smaller fuel tanks. Personally I would make all of these the same.

Hydrogen might be the most abundant element, but it's very rarely not attached to something else. It takes more energy to get it (say, from splitting water) than you get back from burning it or using it in a fuel cell.
Then there is the issue of transporting it and storing it. I'll to find you a good link to read.

ETA: This is a pretty good one - http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html

Edited by XitUp on Friday 13th February 18:22

[sosidge]

Dilemna said:

And on the track diesel engines are are currently dominant as they don't use as much fuel as petrol engines so spend less time in the pits filling up.....
In a race outright bhp power isn't everyting unless you are racing over such a short distance such as to get to the fuel pump. I read that Audi's V10 diesel engine they used for Le Mans does about 18mpg. The other traditional petrol mothers do like 2 mpg. 'Am I right? So that makes for a lot more fuel stops meaning slowing down from race pace, coming to a halt, refilling and restarting all costing valuable time.

Is a hyrdrogen fuel cell car really a scam? How do you mean? Could you please explain? It seems a pretty good idea as hydrogen is so abundant in the atmosphere.

Alex Dilemna.

Edited by Dilemna on Friday 13th February 18:06

Edited by Dilemna on Friday 13th February 18:07

I think you are missing the point a little here. The story is about the Seat Leon WTCC car which does not refuel. It's power advantage (as described in the article) is mostly from the instant grunt at low revs, although it produces a similar amount of power to the petrol cars it produces more of it across a wider rev range.

At Le Mans the refuelling time is an advantage, but the diesel cars are also setting the fastest laps in qualifying.

In both classes the diesels are allowed benefits that petrol cars are not, including larger engine capacities, larger air intakes and forced induction.

Hydrogen as a fuel is a non-starter as the energy required to manufacture, store and distribute it is unrealistically high.

[H22K]

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.

Preposterous arguement. While you're at it you may as well complain that they see Audi and Peugeot in the top spots, therefore Audis must be the fastest cars on the road, and Peugeots the second fastest.

People who choose cars based on things like that couldn't give a toss about Le Mans racing. It's not exactly an "everyman" motorsport..

Personally I think it's the same situation as the A4 quattros storming BTCC about ten years ago. People hate anything different that appears to offer an advantage (of course, in the A4's case, weight penalties were added to the cars, and these were increased race by race until the pace advantage of the quattro was negated by the extra ballast).

Could one not suggest that perhaps with a different character of engine blasting round the track, it'll make the petrol engined manufacturers start to look at how they can alter / improve the engines to compete effectively?

As for the comments re Le Mans regs favouring diesels, I'm pretty sure the intake sizes are being restricted on the dervs this year along with a couple of other "reigning-in" rulings.

Competition fuels innovation. Surely chucking diesels into the mix can only lead to better petrol and diesel technology?

And finally...
ffs quit the pathetic whigning "it's not fair it's not fair my favourite fuel isn't winning races and the rules are all biased towards the one I don't like and and and"

would you listen to yourselves?

Edited by H22K on Friday 20th February 09:32

[aarondrs]

Its a very simple argument really. Of course the rules are scewed, how else do we get the manufacturers involved. However that said I believe in the interests of getting the best out of any engine type rule sshould be relaxed. If no turbos allowed that means no turbos, if they are allowed then petrol and diesel would have a level playing field. If you are allowed to drive fornt or rear whell drive then so be it. Don't negate the rear drivers advantage through weight penalties. Why would you? its nonsense. A front drive TDi 2.0 will never beat a front drive 2.0 petrol turbo (TPi) let alone one with rear drive.

If these regulations were relaxed thus then the best car, engine and drive layout would win. Simple. As long as the basis was from that manufacturers standard parts then it would follow that the WTCC would be won by the best road cars.