RE: Diesel myths debunked
Discussion
tommy1973s said:
Quote:
Like most 40-somethings, I grew up despising diesels; as the diesels of my formative years were horrible.
I suffer badly from this. And because I usually buy cars at 5+ years old and am run around London in 10 yr old diesels I'm partially biased by impressions of older ones.Like most 40-somethings, I grew up despising diesels; as the diesels of my formative years were horrible.
tommy1973s said:
I'd still not have one in a sports car.
Nope.tommy1973s said:
But in a real-world family car or company car, where you need discreet pace, modern BMW and Audi sixes and the Audi 8 cylinder diesels do not feel like a compromise. They're not sporting revvy engines obviously, but they sound OK, the performance per mpg ratio is excellent, and **** they're seriously quick - not just "quick for a diesel" - these are fast cars, period.
Fair enough - some of the very latest multis are way better than before. I have driven an E Class with the V6 diesel and I actually like how it sounded from inside and liked the low down torque. Only really drove it round urban roads, though so didn't get to rev it out. Or maybe I did?A mate has a TD V8 RRS and I got him to fire it up from cold and it was probably the first one I'd heard fire from cold that didn't sound like a bag of spanners from the outside. Another mate has just bought an XF and that's also pretty quiet.
The other day I had a go in my FIL's new (yr old) Octavia VRS diesel and for a four it was good. Much less boomy inside than his previous Seat diesel (and all other 4 pots I've ever been in, tbh). To drive it was better too. Still nothing below 1k, though, and although you could row it to 5000 rpm it was all over by the low 4000's. So a useable band of about 2000-2250 rpm rather than, say 1500 for earlier ones.
So the gap in capabilites has narrowed. For me, buying s/h at 5+ years old, the first gen of diesels that I would seriously consider is only jut becoming available. If I were move out of London and combined two car mileage went from under 10k a year to 25k I would probably end up in a diesel or two because the cost of the fuel to run the petrol equivalents would become a significant factor.
But, as I reminded my wife last night, we'd only do all that if I were able to compensate by having something petrol and interesting tucked away with a petrol multi - V8/V6/I6/flat six.
Americans don't have the same punitive taxes on their fuel. I can't see them changing much too soon. Those with money will still do the multi-petrol. This with less dispoable or whole feel they should cut down will do hybrids, lpg of just go for next gen ultra efficient and smaller turbo'd petrols.
Fox- said:
I dont think the issue is so much people like vlad with genuinelly capable 335d's, its more the increasing mentality of the average diesel driver, doing 5k a miles a year in a clattery 2.0 TDI S-Line 140 under the genuine impression its some sort of a supercar and that the 2.0TFSI he could have bought for the same money with sod all difference in running costs given the low mileage just 'isnt as good as it hasnt got the torque, innit'. I mean just look at that guy above. He reckons his 4 cylinder diesel engine is so quiet that he's gone above the usual 'you cant tell its a diesel' cliche and has declared that even standing outside of the car by the front wheel he couldnt hear the engine. I mean.. really? It's just delusion - and the reason why things get heated is because these people have actually convinced themselves what they say is true.u
I think you'd probably need to buy something like a Phantom before you actually needed to physically check the car was running becuase you couldnt hear the engine when stood beside the engine bay.
Buying a diesel is a compromise. Quite why people get so touchy about that I've no idea, whats wrong with it being a compromise? I'll probably compromise and buy one next as well but I do hope I don't turn into a diesel crusader and try and convince everyone and myself that I didnt buy a 550i because I 'wanted the torque of the superior diesel'.
See I actually agree with your first sentence. And the reason some of us appear defensive? You try running a car you truly enjoy, something you've wanted fir years, then have a bunch of ill informed TG quoting goons constantly attack your choice of car. Oddly enough, it gets rather irritating.I think you'd probably need to buy something like a Phantom before you actually needed to physically check the car was running becuase you couldnt hear the engine when stood beside the engine bay.
Buying a diesel is a compromise. Quite why people get so touchy about that I've no idea, whats wrong with it being a compromise? I'll probably compromise and buy one next as well but I do hope I don't turn into a diesel crusader and try and convince everyone and myself that I didnt buy a 550i because I 'wanted the torque of the superior diesel'.
Edited by Fox- on Saturday 28th April 09:06
Fox- said:
I dont think the issue is so much people like vlad with genuinelly capable 335d's, its more the increasing mentality of the average diesel driver, doing 5k a miles a year in a clattery 2.0 TDI S-Line 140 under the genuine impression its some sort of a supercar and that the 2.0TFSI he could have bought for the same money with sod all difference in running costs given the low mileage just 'isnt as good as it hasnt got the torque, innit'. I mean just look at that guy above. He reckons his 4 cylinder diesel engine is so quiet that he's gone above the usual 'you cant tell its a diesel' cliche and has declared that even standing outside of the car by the front wheel he couldnt hear the engine. I mean.. really? It's just delusion - and the reason why things get heated is because these people have actually convinced themselves what they say is true.
I think you'd probably need to buy something like a Phantom before you actually needed to physically check the car was running becuase you couldnt hear the engine when stood beside the engine bay.
Buying a diesel is a compromise. Quite why people get so touchy about that I've no idea, whats wrong with it being a compromise? I'll probably compromise and buy one next as well but I do hope I don't turn into a diesel crusader and try and convince everyone and myself that I didnt buy a 550i because I 'wanted the torque of the superior diesel'.
Can you show me anyone that thinks it is a supercar? Most of the time people talk about real world performance, and being able to make rapid progress. I think you'd probably need to buy something like a Phantom before you actually needed to physically check the car was running becuase you couldnt hear the engine when stood beside the engine bay.
Buying a diesel is a compromise. Quite why people get so touchy about that I've no idea, whats wrong with it being a compromise? I'll probably compromise and buy one next as well but I do hope I don't turn into a diesel crusader and try and convince everyone and myself that I didnt buy a 550i because I 'wanted the torque of the superior diesel'.
Edited by Fox- on Saturday 28th April 09:06
I think some people read too much into stuff.
Real world performance has to be well up there in terms of annoying and meaningless terms.
My petrol car does not lack 'real world performance' in comparison with the diesel eqiuivlent (I had one, my father the other and I drove both on a regular basis). What it does do is deliver its power differently, thats all. That doesn't mean it has less 'real world performance' it means I exploit that performance in a different way. I'd overtake in 4th in the 530d and 3rd in the 530i, and doing this yeilded greater performance, as you'd expect, from the more powerful car.
I'm beginning to wonder if most people think the 'real world' involves driving around with a gearbox full of quick drying cement locking you in 5th.
My petrol car does not lack 'real world performance' in comparison with the diesel eqiuivlent (I had one, my father the other and I drove both on a regular basis). What it does do is deliver its power differently, thats all. That doesn't mean it has less 'real world performance' it means I exploit that performance in a different way. I'd overtake in 4th in the 530d and 3rd in the 530i, and doing this yeilded greater performance, as you'd expect, from the more powerful car.
I'm beginning to wonder if most people think the 'real world' involves driving around with a gearbox full of quick drying cement locking you in 5th.
I don't know where I stand in the PH world. I drive a 350+ HP V8 - good in PH world. It's a diesel Audi - bad in PH world.
Why a chipped A8 4.2 tdi? I does everything I need and want in a car. It can be a relaxed, high 30's MPG wafter as well as a firmly suspended high performance (0 - 60 in the 5's) saloon.
I have owned big selection of cars over the years covering most common combinations of straight and V 4,5,6 and 8 cylinders as well as fwd, rwd and awd. In my opinion, for the way I drive, a V8 tdi awd is best.
For those who say diesels run out of revs early, yes they do. When diesel drivers point out the comparative lack of low down torque of petrols the universal reply seems to be drop down a few gears. Well when a diesel runs out of revs just change up a gear.
Why a chipped A8 4.2 tdi? I does everything I need and want in a car. It can be a relaxed, high 30's MPG wafter as well as a firmly suspended high performance (0 - 60 in the 5's) saloon.
I have owned big selection of cars over the years covering most common combinations of straight and V 4,5,6 and 8 cylinders as well as fwd, rwd and awd. In my opinion, for the way I drive, a V8 tdi awd is best.
For those who say diesels run out of revs early, yes they do. When diesel drivers point out the comparative lack of low down torque of petrols the universal reply seems to be drop down a few gears. Well when a diesel runs out of revs just change up a gear.
Fox- said:
Real world performance has to be well up there in terms of annoying and meaningless terms.
My petrol car does not lack 'real world performance' in comparison with the diesel eqiuivlent (I had one, my father the other and I drove both on a regular basis). What it does do is deliver its power differently, thats all. That doesn't mean it has less 'real world performance' it means I exploit that performance in a different way. I'd overtake in 4th in the 530d and 3rd in the 530i, and doing this yeilded greater performance, as you'd expect, from the more powerful car.
I'm beginning to wonder if most people think the 'real world' involves driving around with a gearbox full of quick drying cement locking you in 5th.
I never said anything about petrol, stop getting so bloody defensive! Is there any wonder these threads end up like they do? My petrol car does not lack 'real world performance' in comparison with the diesel eqiuivlent (I had one, my father the other and I drove both on a regular basis). What it does do is deliver its power differently, thats all. That doesn't mean it has less 'real world performance' it means I exploit that performance in a different way. I'd overtake in 4th in the 530d and 3rd in the 530i, and doing this yeilded greater performance, as you'd expect, from the more powerful car.
I'm beginning to wonder if most people think the 'real world' involves driving around with a gearbox full of quick drying cement locking you in 5th.
I never said anything about one being faster than the other, or better or worse. Merely that using one on the road, everyday, in normal circumstances, as you would with any other car, the performance of the diesel is absolutely fine.The point I was making that despite the people who talk about running out of puff, lack of revs, etc in a diesel, don't seem to realize that different engines have different characteristics. A 2.0 Honda v-tec is very different to a lazy yank V8, which is different to a 1.6 turbo, but no-one bemoans the differing driving styles of one, over the other based on the fuel they use. It is different when diesel is mentioned, however. As you say, you learn the characteristics of the engine, and drive accordingly, and it amazes me still that some people still seem to struggle with this notion.
Diesel sounds different, and has different characteristics, but once you get used to the difference, as you would with the engines mentioned above, it is an engine. It has x amount of power, and a certain rev range. Use the gears as they should be, and you will be fine.
Vladimir said:
Don't forget that the diesel version of your car is now quite old tech. They have moved on a fair bit since then. I'd rate your petrol engine well over the diesel equivalent.
The diesel version of my car has the M57B30, the same engine at the heart of your 335d 
It's had minor revisions since it came out in 1998 but nothing that fundamentally changed the engine - just power tweaks etc.The fundamental changes began in 2008 when it was replaced by the all new N57. this is actually a deeply impressive engine, I took out an F10 530d at the launch and was blown away by how good it was. Flexible, great power delivery, it even sounded good under acceleration. The only downside was that clatter at idle, still.
And then yesterday I had an X1 2.0d SE loan car for the day which reminded me why I generally prefer petrol engines. The worst thing about it was the fact it was completely flat until about 2000rpm. Oh, and the sound.
I'd call an extra turbo and around 100bhp more than just minor tweaks.
Or do you consider the Cosworth Impreza to be just a minor tweak of the earliest turbo versions from the 1989? Same basic engine after all.
But yes, that 20d unit, while efficient, is a bit grim, especially in an X1!
Or do you consider the Cosworth Impreza to be just a minor tweak of the earliest turbo versions from the 1989? Same basic engine after all.
But yes, that 20d unit, while efficient, is a bit grim, especially in an X1!
Edited by Vladimir on Saturday 28th April 09:52
Vladimir said:
I'd call an extra turbo and around 100bhp more than just minor tweaks.
You know exactly what I meant, just like the 218bhp engine in a 325i is the same basic engine as the 272bhp engine in a 330i despite the greater power. ie, the fundamentals are the same and it isn't 'old tech' in a way yours isn't!If we were talking about the new 3.0d, then I'd agree with you..
I need to drive the new one but even owner reports of the new F10 are mixed, mostly due to its sheer size and electric steering. If it goes into the F30, I will be calling my local dealer for a test.
Saw a new 535d Touring yesterday. It had the full Schnitzer treatment and looked truly dreadful on comedy rims and joke giant exhausts. What a waste!
Saw a new 535d Touring yesterday. It had the full Schnitzer treatment and looked truly dreadful on comedy rims and joke giant exhausts. What a waste!
Willy Nilly said:
I can't be bothered to wade through 11 pages of diesel v petrol.
But back on the topic of diesel cars and the USA. I'd say they are ideal for the type of driving that most people do in the US. Long distance at a steady speed is was diesels like.
It's largely a myth that 'most people' in the US drive long distances at a steady speed. According to Kelley Blue Book (The US equivilent of Glass's) the average annual mileage in the US is very similar to ours at between 12k and 15k. Most people in the US are not doing epic road trips on open freeways, they are commuting to work on crowded interstates in stop start traffic.But back on the topic of diesel cars and the USA. I'd say they are ideal for the type of driving that most people do in the US. Long distance at a steady speed is was diesels like.
If a long distance needs to be covered 'most people' simply fly. You only need to look at the amount of air traffic between New York and Washington DC - and thats not even THAT far to drive - to see that.
Fox- said:
Willy Nilly said:
I can't be bothered to wade through 11 pages of diesel v petrol.
But back on the topic of diesel cars and the USA. I'd say they are ideal for the type of driving that most people do in the US. Long distance at a steady speed is was diesels like.
It's largely a myth that 'most people' in the US drive long distances at a steady speed. According to Kelley Blue Book (The US equivilent of Glass's) the average annual mileage in the US is very similar to ours at between 12k and 15k. Most people in the US are not doing epic road trips on open freeways, they are commuting to work on crowded interstates in stop start traffic.But back on the topic of diesel cars and the USA. I'd say they are ideal for the type of driving that most people do in the US. Long distance at a steady speed is was diesels like.
If a long distance needs to be covered 'most people' simply fly. You only need to look at the amount of air traffic between New York and Washington DC - and thats not even THAT far to drive - to see that.
Willy Nilly said:
When you've lived in the Mid West, everywhere is a fair drive away. There were people in the town I lived near that were commuting 3 hours each way.
What is the population of the Mid West?What is the population of California and the Eastern Seaboard?
'Most people' don't live in the mid west and drive 500 miles a day
Motorrad said:
This thread is about the US not whatever you can buy in the UK. The diesel Golf available in the US as of 2011 when I lived there was a much lower spec than a standard GTi.
Don't move the goal posts, we're not (or should not) be discussing the merits of a diesel car in the UK but in the US. Forget any of this UK crap.
If this thread was in any way related to the UK then I agree a diesel car makes sense for a high volume, high mileage vehicle.
It isn't, we're talking about the land of the free where people still believe they can live like free human beings. I'll take some of that in 8 cylinder petrol format.
The point I was making is that there is no reason why the US should not have the same diesel options as the UK. I'm sure given time and the market, the US will get the same spec Diesel Golfs as we have at a similar price point compared to the petrol models.Don't move the goal posts, we're not (or should not) be discussing the merits of a diesel car in the UK but in the US. Forget any of this UK crap.
If this thread was in any way related to the UK then I agree a diesel car makes sense for a high volume, high mileage vehicle.
It isn't, we're talking about the land of the free where people still believe they can live like free human beings. I'll take some of that in 8 cylinder petrol format.
All things being equal there is no reason why the US would not move towards diesel like the UK has.
I wasn't moving the goal posts, I was simply discussing the subject as I saw it.
vsonix said:
Devil2575 said:
BBL-Sean said:
In the U.S., the Golf GTI is not available with a diesel, but the base model Golf is:
2.5L 170 hp petrol, MT, 2-door w/no package options -- $17,995 US base price; 23/33 mpg (in U.S. gallons; combined mpg figure is not shown on the web page)
2.5L 170-hp petrol, MT, 2-door w/all package options -- $20,655 US base price; 23/33
2.0L 140-hp TDI, MT, 2-door w/no package options -- $24,235 US base price; 30/42 -- +$6,240 over petrol, with 7/9 mpg improvement (city/hwy)
2.0L 140-hp TDI, MT, 2-door w/all package options -- $27,640 US base price; 30/42 -- +$6,985 over petrol, with 7/9 mpg improvement
SOURCE: http://www.vw.com/en/models.html
So in the U.S., the diesel costs significantly more than the petrol version, has 30 less hp, and the published mileage differences are minimal. Coupled with the higher cost of diesel fuel - which was half the price of regular unleaded thirty years ago, but is now typically as much as or slightly more than premium unleaded - it is indeed a "no-brainer" for consumers in the U.S.
I'm interested as to why in the US the diesel gets such poor economy? A 2.5l petrol only gets 7/9 mpg worse than a 2 litre diesel?2.5L 170 hp petrol, MT, 2-door w/no package options -- $17,995 US base price; 23/33 mpg (in U.S. gallons; combined mpg figure is not shown on the web page)
2.5L 170-hp petrol, MT, 2-door w/all package options -- $20,655 US base price; 23/33
2.0L 140-hp TDI, MT, 2-door w/no package options -- $24,235 US base price; 30/42 -- +$6,240 over petrol, with 7/9 mpg improvement (city/hwy)
2.0L 140-hp TDI, MT, 2-door w/all package options -- $27,640 US base price; 30/42 -- +$6,985 over petrol, with 7/9 mpg improvement
SOURCE: http://www.vw.com/en/models.html
So in the U.S., the diesel costs significantly more than the petrol version, has 30 less hp, and the published mileage differences are minimal. Coupled with the higher cost of diesel fuel - which was half the price of regular unleaded thirty years ago, but is now typically as much as or slightly more than premium unleaded - it is indeed a "no-brainer" for consumers in the U.S.
Maybe there's something else going on here?
On paper the US 2.5 gets worse than the EURO GTI, which isn't supprising. What is supprising is that the US Diesel model gets a lot worse mpg than the Euro diesel. Combined of 58 for the Euro model but in the US thats 30-42 US which is 36-50mpg UK? So a combined which will be around 42mpg?
Doesn't make a lot of sense.
According to the US VW site they only list the 2.5 as an engine option, no diesel.
http://www.vw.com/en/models/golf/trims-specs.html#...
Call me suspicious about the US EPA estimated milages but IIRC these were the ones that stated the latest BMW M3 did about 10 mpg and the Boss Mustang did 25 mpg...
Edited by Devil2575 on Friday 27th April 17:30
I don't get why everyone is getting so wound up about this subject?
Whether or not the masses in the US can be persuaded into a diesel car or not is surely not something that can't be discussed calmly or logically?
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with engine note, power band and how satisfying a diesel engine is to the average petrol head though. As I've said before most drivers aren't petrolheads and don't care about this stuff.
As for which is better, you might as well argue that blue is better than red. It's subjective and as such no one is right. It's certainly not worth people getting their knickers in a twist.
Whether or not the masses in the US can be persuaded into a diesel car or not is surely not something that can't be discussed calmly or logically?
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with engine note, power band and how satisfying a diesel engine is to the average petrol head though. As I've said before most drivers aren't petrolheads and don't care about this stuff.
As for which is better, you might as well argue that blue is better than red. It's subjective and as such no one is right. It's certainly not worth people getting their knickers in a twist.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff