MPG and your reasons!!!
Discussion
xRIEx said:
Fastdruid said:
AC43 said:
Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.
You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.
k your pansy part-throttle bks - are you queer?!"There is not "nothing" under 2krpm on a diesel, because "nothing" would mean the car wouldn't move at all. There is a large amount of torque at low revs meaning a modicum of power. Not "nothing".
What you actually mean is, because you're a red-blooded, supermasculine huge-cocked male, you have to convince everyone on an Internet forum that your stellar driving skills are such that you would choke to death on the cobwebs of boredom if you had to drive anything lesser.
On the local dual carriageway it woul not pull up an incline below 2k in 3rd or 4th. It just lost speed.
I guess my point was that a tiny (I assume) diesel in a relatively heavy modern car allied with a gearbox with 5 widely-spaced ratio was a poor combination.
I would have much preferred a petrol. An n/a 1.8 or 2.0 ideally.
As I said earlier a 3.0 v6 diesel in an exec with a 7 or 8 speed auto is a much better combo IMHO.
Out on the motorway at 70mph steady I was amazed to see 36mpg!
That is in a 2 tonne M6 with 550bhp from the 4.4 V8 twin turbo!!! I find it incredible to see that in such a car. Of course, increase speed and it quickly drops, but I can easily cruise at 70mph seeing 32mpg-35mpg depending on conditions on the day.
That is in a 2 tonne M6 with 550bhp from the 4.4 V8 twin turbo!!! I find it incredible to see that in such a car. Of course, increase speed and it quickly drops, but I can easily cruise at 70mph seeing 32mpg-35mpg depending on conditions on the day.
AC43 said:
xRIEx said:
Fastdruid said:
AC43 said:
Nothing below 2k. Then a horrible noise for the next 2k plus vibrations through the seat, wheel and pedals. Then nothing.
You're wrong. No diesel is like that. That doesn't happen to mine. You must be driving it wrong. You're not a good driver.Just a few things I was told when I said I didn't like that nothing, nothing, nothing, all, nothing, nothing power delivery of diesels.
k your pansy part-throttle bks - are you queer?!"There is not "nothing" under 2krpm on a diesel, because "nothing" would mean the car wouldn't move at all. There is a large amount of torque at low revs meaning a modicum of power. Not "nothing".
What you actually mean is, because you're a red-blooded, supermasculine huge-cocked male, you have to convince everyone on an Internet forum that your stellar driving skills are such that you would choke to death on the cobwebs of boredom if you had to drive anything lesser.
On the local dual carriageway it woul not pull up an incline below 2k in 3rd or 4th. It just lost speed.
I guess my point was that a tiny (I assume) diesel in a relatively heavy modern car allied with a gearbox with 5 widely-spaced ratio was a poor combination.
I would have much preferred a petrol. An n/a 1.8 or 2.0 ideally.
As I said earlier a 3.0 v6 diesel in an exec with a 7 or 8 speed auto is a much better combo IMHO.
AC43 said:
I guess my point was that a tiny (I assume) diesel in a relatively heavy modern car allied with a gearbox with 5 widely-spaced ratio was a poor combination.
It was a poor combination if you are not prepared to keep it on the power band.If you had a tiny petrol engine in the same car would the result have been much different?
I bet if the MPG computer on cars was replaced by a CPW computer (cost per week) we would all stop worrying about it quite as much.
Out in the 2.0d this week and it is showing '£32 per week' vs out in the 330bhp turbo'd straight six this week and showing '£38 per week'.
Hmmmm? Not that bad after all.
I find when in Europe the L/km is far less stressing. Seeing 32mpg vs 40mpg seems a massive difference, seeing 8.8L/km vs 7.1L/km means.....I don't really give a fk!
Out in the 2.0d this week and it is showing '£32 per week' vs out in the 330bhp turbo'd straight six this week and showing '£38 per week'.
Hmmmm? Not that bad after all.
I find when in Europe the L/km is far less stressing. Seeing 32mpg vs 40mpg seems a massive difference, seeing 8.8L/km vs 7.1L/km means.....I don't really give a f
k! gizlaroc said:
I find when in Europe the L/km is far less stressing. Seeing 32mpg vs 40mpg seems a massive difference, seeing 8.8L/km vs 7.1L/km means.....I don't really give a fk!
I think you mean per 100Km unless you are (quite literally) driving a tank...k! Our Mazda 6 MPS doesn't do MPG on the computer, it only does L/100Km or L/100m. Is 80L/100m a good figure?
Always a good topic for a debate. 
Having come out of an E60 M5 and into a 330d, there is clearly a huge mpg difference. 180-300 miles from the M5s 70 litre tank against 500-600 miles from the 330ds 63 litre tank. Both run on V-Power.
I do approximately 12k miles a year, so no real need for the diesel. However, it comfortably averages over 42mpg whilst making good progress (50mpg at outside lane of M40 speeds......) and if there is a trade off against an equivalent 330i, it's only aurally.
For many of us who aren't powerfully built company directors with a goatee, there has to be a compromise in our daily drivers. Some of us can only afford one car. Shock, Horror! Do I prefer the 330d to previous petrol cars? Absolutely not. I do appreciate its ability to perform more than adequately whilst being relatively parsimonious.
Having come out of an E60 M5 and into a 330d, there is clearly a huge mpg difference. 180-300 miles from the M5s 70 litre tank against 500-600 miles from the 330ds 63 litre tank. Both run on V-Power.
I do approximately 12k miles a year, so no real need for the diesel. However, it comfortably averages over 42mpg whilst making good progress (50mpg at outside lane of M40 speeds......) and if there is a trade off against an equivalent 330i, it's only aurally.
For many of us who aren't powerfully built company directors with a goatee, there has to be a compromise in our daily drivers. Some of us can only afford one car. Shock, Horror!
Do I prefer the 330d to previous petrol cars? Absolutely not. I do appreciate its ability to perform more than adequately whilst being relatively parsimonious. daemon said:
AC43 said:
I guess my point was that a tiny (I assume) diesel in a relatively heavy modern car allied with a gearbox with 5 widely-spaced ratio was a poor combination.
It was a poor combination if you are not prepared to keep it on the power band.If you had a tiny petrol engine in the same car would the result have been much different?
On the miles I tend to do I'd trade the mpg for a more pleasant all round experience in a family hatch.
RobM77 said:
Your point is relevant, but it's an extreme case. My 320d revs and pulls happily between 1200 and about 3500, with no discernible peak in torque (unlike a 2.0Tdi Audi I drove recently!) so offers good flexibility for road driving. To be honest it's far more suited to the road than my Lotus. Most A and B road corners are taken at about 45 to 50mph, so you only need to gain 10mph after them, so you don't get to stretch a petrol engine's legs at all. This is why straight line performance is of little interest to me in a road car - I hardly ever use it!
I hired a 320D in hilly terrain a few years ago in the South of France and it was a much better prospect - it pulled from much lower revs and there was actually a point in going past 4k. And it had a six speed box which helped. Nice chassis and I actually enjoyed driving it (bar the noise).Sort of assumed that all new diesels would be like this but evidently not.
RobM77 said:
Your point is relevant, but it's an extreme case. My 320d revs and pulls happily between 1200 and about 3500, with no discernible peak in torque (unlike a 2.0Tdi Audi I drove recently!) so offers good flexibility for road driving. To be honest it's far more suited to the road than my Lotus. Most A and B road corners are taken at about 45 to 50mph, so you only need to gain 10mph after them, so you don't get to stretch a petrol engine's legs at all. This is why straight line performance is of little interest to me in a road car - I hardly ever use it!
I hired a 320D in hilly terrain a few years ago in the South of France and it was a much better prospect - it pulled from much lower revs and there was actually a point in going past 4k. And it had a six speed box which helped. Nice chassis and I actually enjoyed driving it (bar the noise).Sort of assumed that all new diesels would be like this but evidently not.
AC43 said:
RobM77 said:
Your point is relevant, but it's an extreme case. My 320d revs and pulls happily between 1200 and about 3500, with no discernible peak in torque (unlike a 2.0Tdi Audi I drove recently!) so offers good flexibility for road driving. To be honest it's far more suited to the road than my Lotus. Most A and B road corners are taken at about 45 to 50mph, so you only need to gain 10mph after them, so you don't get to stretch a petrol engine's legs at all. This is why straight line performance is of little interest to me in a road car - I hardly ever use it!
I hired a 320D in hilly terrain a few years ago in the South of France and it was a much better prospect - it pulled from much lower revs and there was actually a point in going past 4k. And it had a six speed box which helped. Nice chassis and I actually enjoyed driving it (bar the noise).Sort of assumed that all new diesels would be like this but evidently not.
RobM77 said:
BMW are one of the few companies, if not the only company, who make practical everyday cars that are designed from the ground up to be good to drive. Other companies make practical A to B cars with little thought to handling and then make an 'ST' or 'RS' version which is improved. This obviously results in some huge differences in their mundane models. Ford or Peugeot have no reason to make a diesel good to drive, because they're not trying to, that's the preserve if their ST, RS or GTi models. BMW however, do. Having said that, this attitude is obviously changing with the introduction of a front wheel drive one series!
Yeah it was a great steer. I was up in the hills in Provence and I could have carved arcs out on the sweepers all day long. And sometimes did. The best thing was that it was a free upgrade over some Peugeot econo-hatch or other. Result. RobM77 said:
BMW are one of the few companies, if not the only company, who make practical everyday cars that are designed from the ground up to be good to drive. Other companies make practical A to B cars with little thought to handling and then make an 'ST' or 'RS' version which is improved. This obviously results in some huge differences in their mundane models. Ford or Peugeot have no reason to make a diesel good to drive, because they're not trying to, that's the preserve if their ST, RS or GTi models. BMW however, do. Having said that, this attitude is obviously changing with the introduction of a front wheel drive one series!
Yeah it was a great steer. I was up in the hills in Provence and I could have carved arcs out on the sweepers all day long. And sometimes did. The best thing was that it was a free upgrade over some Peugeot econo-hatch or other. Result. AC43 said:
I hired a 320D in hilly terrain a few years ago in the South of France and it was a much better prospect - it pulled from much lower revs and there was actually a point in going past 4k. And it had a six speed box which helped. Nice chassis and I actually enjoyed driving it (bar the noise).
Sort of assumed that all new diesels would be like this but evidently not.
If you drive any low powered car then its going to be no ball of fire at low revs.Sort of assumed that all new diesels would be like this but evidently not.
A 100bhp in a medium sized car is going to feel slow and underpowered not because its a diesel but because its got 100BHP.
BHML said:
My C63 does 15-17mpg so I've got a 2.0 TDI Vectra (about 40mpg) for the donkey work. Best of both worlds.
Same sort of scenario here. I use a prius for work and it gets over 70mpg but this drops on the motorway to around 65-67mpg. But the benefit is, i'm not putting 15k miles on my jaguar xfr, nor am i curbing the alloys, dumping it in random car parks / side streets, getting dents and scrapes from careless assholes. And the best part is the 40p / mile claim i can make means the profit from the fuel (prius costs around 8-9p / mile just in fuel) pays for a lot of the fuel i use doing 18mpg in my XFR over around 6k a year.
Edited by bp1000 on Saturday 30th August 10:01
RobM77 said:
BMW are one of the few companies, if not the only company, who make practical everyday cars that are designed from the ground up to be good to drive. Other companies make practical A to B cars with little thought to handling and then make an 'ST' or 'RS' version which is improved. This obviously results in some huge differences in their mundane models. Ford or Peugeot have no reason to make a diesel good to drive, because they're not trying to, that's the preserve if their ST, RS or GTi models. BMW however, do. Having said that, this attitude is obviously changing with the introduction of a front wheel drive one series!
That's about 20 years out of date. Take for example, the following basic models:-Ford Focus - handles very nicely indeed.
BMW 320d - understeer central station; wallowy ride; nothing approaching a driver's car.
I currently have a C class as a courtesy car and handles barely any worse than a boggo 3 series. The steering is much worse but, other than that, there isn't much in it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff