The government have won. Selling my diesel for a petrol.....

[havoc]

xjay1337 said:

IforB said:

Diseasel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

I enjoy my diesel track car thank you very much. ;-)

Weirdo!

[Bayerischer]

replaced my 330d with a V8 XC90 in 2016. Got really sick of DPF issues

[JulianHJ]

As this was brewing a year ago I took the opportunity to ditch my ten year old Focus TDCI and buy a new Focus ST. Half the MPG, ‘firm’ ride but an amazing difference overall.

[Ninja59]

liner33 said:

You made this statement "Particulates from DI petrols are much higher than a modern DPF equipped diesel"

The limits of PM on EU5 and EU6 for petrol and diesel engines are the same, that's a fact


Those articles whilst interesting are a little dated and relate largely to EU5 standards, the first is essentially saying that under a non regulated test the pm emissions can be much higher than permitted on some older EU5 di engines, I have seen the same statements made with diesel engines. Its well reported that during dpf regeneration cycles that both nox and particulates from diesel can exceed the set limits by many times, but for EU testing purposes they do not measure during dpf regeneration, so if the limits are the same, how on earth can petrol engines pm emissions be higher ?

I am yet to see any sources from you! Come on show the reverse from studies (not by a manufacturer), if possible?

I made that statement as technically speaking based on all the recent available studies in the public domain the studies have found particulates from DI petrols to be as high as a non-DPF diesel.

Since when did I bring EU limits into the equation? Minus the fact they are the same, does not mean in the real world that cars will not exceed them. Actually these days it is probably better that you think that they will and do irrespective of fuel being used.

Actually if you bothered to fully read my posts from the studies it did include (whether as direct intent or not as part of the study) that the particulate emissions were as high as a conventional (non-dpf) diesel. It is completely fair to compare a modern equivalent EU specification vehicle in petrol and diesel form (in the case of diesels that pretty much means it will have a DPF), which subsequently can lead to a fair statement that an equivalent level of engine and EU category can see more particulates released from the petrol vehicle.

In regards to regeneration exceeding the stated limits of the EU, chances are that any petrol will emit them above the EU limits as well. Even a petrol fitted with a GPF whilst having to regenerate less will still likely need to regenerate.

I love the way you just cherry pick elements...rather than reply to the full thing.

Oh and a more recent study including an EU6 petrol the final conclusion is fairly clear, direct injection petrols need filters as well.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/1705...

Edited by Ninja59 on Wednesday 24th January 14:00

[ChilliWhizz]

havoc said:

xjay1337 said:

IforB said:

Diseasel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

I enjoy my diesel track car thank you very much. ;-)

Weirdo!

Didn’t some diesel Audi’s do quite well at Le Mans a few years back? I seem to recall an interview with the team after the race and the drivers saying they’d wished they had petrol cars because the diesels were really boring to drive and sounded crap

[Y Y Z]

IforB said:

Diseasel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

Revvy, lighterweight petrol power will always be more fun, as long as the car it is attached to is also light and fun

This video of an Elise diesel conversion is always worth a watch, I think it's a tuned PD130 or PD150 I can't recall. Good fun though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6BJoiBYQ-w

[IforB]

Y Y Z said:

IforB said:

Diseasel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

Revvy, lighterweight petrol power will always be more fun, as long as the car it is attached to is also light and fun

This video of an Elise diesel conversion is always worth a watch, I think it's a tuned PD130 or PD150 I can't recall. Good fun though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6BJoiBYQ-w

Oh that poor car. Whilst I applaud people doing silly things with cars, sticking a diesel lump in an Elise steps over the line somewhat!

Colin Chapman must have been doing 20,000rpm.

[Ares]

ChilliWhizz said:

havoc said:

xjay1337 said:

IforB said:

Diseasel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

I enjoy my diesel track car thank you very much. ;-)

Weirdo!

Didn’t some diesel Audi’s do quite well at Le Mans a few years back? I seem to recall an interview with the team after the race and the drivers saying they’d wished they had petrol cars because the diesels were really boring to drive and sounded crap

Don't forget, most people bhing about diesels being st to drive have only every driven a sub-150bhp, st diesel.

[havoc]

Find me a diesel with a 7,000rpm powerband and a soundtrack that could cut through steel, and I'll let you off.

In the meantime...
https://youtu.be/OjwwV20iZYE?t=288

https://youtu.be/awArTC8iQ3Q?t=39

[Ares]

havoc said:

Find me a diesel with a 7,000rpm powerband and a soundtrack that could cut through steel, and I'll let you off.

In the meantime...
https://youtu.be/OjwwV20iZYE?t=288

https://youtu.be/awArTC8iQ3Q?t=39

1) why would you need/want a 7,000rpm power band?
2) what petrol car has a 7,000rpm power band??

[havoc]

Ares said:

1) why would you need/want a 7,000rpm power band?
2) what petrol car has a 7,000rpm power band??

1) I'm exaggerating, but the one weakness of diesels as an 'enthusiast engine' (less so the 6-pot twin-turbo diesels, but even there it's true when compared with their petrol equivalents) is the narrower power-band and the higher rate of cog-swapping required - that characteristic lends itself to auto-boxes, which aren't as much fun.

2) My Civic pulls happily from tickover to >8,500rpm. Torque curve is pretty much flat from <2.500rpm up to >8,000rpm (around or above 90% of peak torque). Again, not saying it's quick* across the whole range, but it gives the engine so much more flexibility, which gives you flexibility in how your drive it.




* Some may say it's not quick anywhere! Depends on your yardstick.

[anothernameitist]

My dad possibly.

The Government (NHS) have given him hearing aids.

He now wants a quiet petrol rather than a noisy diesel

[Coolbanana]

Ares said:

Don't forget, most people bhing about diesels being st to drive have only every driven a sub-150bhp, st diesel.

I wouldn't be so sure "most" is correct. The people who dislike diesel seem to 'mostly' be those who actually enjoy driving. I would rather think that 'most' who buy diesel are happy to drive appliances to get from A-to-B as frugally as possible.

I've owned a remapped 330d and driven a 335d. Had a diesel LR Disco 4 and a RRS. I disliked the diesel in the cars more than the LR's - at least they were trucks and so 'felt' more ok with the power delivery.

Diesel is better suited to Commercial vehicles and if they weren't so dirty and harming, I'd advocate great for fuel-sippers everywhere who actually don't mind their boring power-delivery.

I much prefer the power-delivery of a petrol and the 'instant' power of EV. Far more engaging to drive. Diesel is dying, finally going the way of the dinosaur.

[bungz]

Went from a Dessy Euro 6 car to a Euro 4.

Zero sleep lost.

Media will soon turn on the petrols too.

[captain_cynic]

IforB said:

Diesel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

This.

Turbo diesel engines produce high torque but low power, this makes them good at one job, pulling heavy loads. They're not good for pushing about a small passenger car. If I were to buy a van or a ute, it would be diesel because a 2.4L turbo diesel 4-banger in a Mitsi Triton can tow 3t and have another 1/2t in the tray, its an fuel for working, not for playing or commuting.

The tax breaks for diesels were a mistake, they're slowly being repealed and the market is correcting itself.

[captain_cynic]

Coolbanana said:

Ares said:

Don't forget, most people bhing about diesels being st to drive have only every driven a sub-150bhp, st diesel.

I wouldn't be so sure "most" is correct. The people who dislike diesel seem to 'mostly' be those who actually enjoy driving. I would rather think that 'most' who buy diesel are happy to drive appliances to get from A-to-B as frugally as possible.

This,

The last diesel I drove was a 2.4L Mitsubishi Triton... I was moving nearly a ton in the tray so that was more about driving smooth than driving fast.

However the one before that was a modified J70 Landcruiser. 4.5L V8 triple turbo (2 factory, 1 bolt on), produced a bit over 300 HP (228 KW) and something silly like 800 NM of torques but the fastest I went in it was a little under 20 MPH... It was over an offroad track, I'd say that would be the only exception to the diesels not being fun rule, however there were still plenty of petrol powered 4x4s out on that day, so it's not exclusive.

On a track compared to my old 300 HP Nissan Silvia S15 (obviously modified), I doubt a mapped 330d would be half as fun... the same for just on the road.

[Fox-]

captain_cynic said:

This.

Turbo diesel engines produce high torque but low power, this makes them good at one job, pulling heavy loads. They're not good for pushing about a small passenger car. If I were to buy a van or a ute, it would be diesel because a 2.4L turbo diesel 4-banger in a Mitsi Triton can tow 3t and have another 1/2t in the tray, its an fuel for working, not for playing or commuting.

The tax breaks for diesels were a mistake, they're slowly being repealed and the market is correcting itself.

What tax breaks for diesels?

The tax breaks were for fuel efficient cars with lower co2 emissions not diesel specifically.

[IforB]

Ares said:

ChilliWhizz said:

havoc said:

xjay1337 said:

IforB said:

Diseasel is not a fuel for fun. It has its purpose, but big, heavy engine blocks and massively complex guff around it, do not leand themselves to hurling a car about with abandon.

I enjoy my diesel track car thank you very much. ;-)

Weirdo!

Didn’t some diesel Audi’s do quite well at Le Mans a few years back? I seem to recall an interview with the team after the race and the drivers saying they’d wished they had petrol cars because the diesels were really boring to drive and sounded crap

Don't forget, most people bhing about diesels being st to drive have only every driven a sub-150bhp, st diesel.

Well, some of us have! My last diseasel made over 400bhp on the dyno with approaching 700lbs/ft when turned up fully. In fact it needed to be turned down to stop the diff and gearbox eating themselves.

Absolutely brilliant in a straight line.
However, there was no getting away from the weight of that engine up the front through the bends though!

It also had a power delivery that was almost completely flat, which was wonderful in some ways, but just a bit dull, as you never had to work it hard. You just pushed the throttle and off it went. No real lag, no steps in the power delivery, you just hung on until it changed up and then carried on gathering speed in a very efficient but boring way.

My little S3 with less weight and less power is a much more interesting thing to drive and that's not supposedly the be all and end all in driver involvement itself. I love it, but according to reports the Golf R is more interesting to drive despite being fundamentally the same in many ways.

[xjay1337]

havoc said:

Ares said:

1) why would you need/want a 7,000rpm power band?
2) what petrol car has a 7,000rpm power band??

1) I'm exaggerating, but the one weakness of diesels as an 'enthusiast engine' (less so the 6-pot twin-turbo diesels, but even there it's true when compared with their petrol equivalents) is the narrower power-band and the higher rate of cog-swapping required - that characteristic lends itself to auto-boxes, which aren't as much fun.

2) My Civic pulls happily from tickover to >8,500rpm. Torque curve is pretty much flat from <2.500rpm up to >8,000rpm (around or above 90% of peak torque). Again, not saying it's quick* across the whole range, but it gives the engine so much more flexibility, which gives you flexibility in how your drive it.




* Some may say it's not quick anywhere! Depends on your yardstick.

1) You forget that diesels also have longer gearing to allow them to stay in their powerband for longer. Sure, Auto boxes may suit them better, but given how the 911 GT3 RS only comes with an auto box and is raved about, it's not really fair to play the "automatics are boring" game.

2) Assuming it's an older non turbo NA vtec unit, they have no torque anywhere in the rev range, and only really get a shuffle on in a relatively narrow powerband (about 3k rpm - which is no different to the 1500-4500rpm powerband of most modern 2.0 4 pot diesels).



And on the other hand, the same can be true of many tuned diesels (mine for example spools around 2800rpm, but holds it to well north of 5k).
Another example is the old Evo 8 FQ400 thing, which as classically shown on Top Gear was out dragged by a normal boring Korean car or whatever it was

Similar concept also to 2 stroke.

I mean sure, you get the fun of a very responsive, buzzy, high revving engine, but you aren't going any faster really, with a narrow power band, which is annoying most of the time if you dont' want to drive around like a loon, and revs don't equal fun in my book

[xjay1337]

IforB said:

My little S3 with less weight and less power is a much more interesting thing to drive and that's not supposedly the be all and end all in driver involvement itself. I love it, but according to reports the Golf R is more interesting to drive despite being fundamentally the same in many ways.

I find that the S3 8P (I have not driven an 8V) is VERY dull and boring and flat. When mapped though, they respond much better. You can literally see where they have capped torque and power when you compare the dyno graphs back to back.