Diesel hate? ..wtf?
Discussion
Fastdruid said:
steveL98 said:
I was a petrol fan always until I borrowed an Octavia tdi. The torque, smoothness, flexibility in slow traffic, excellent drive on twisty roads and 65mpg, made me a believer in the diesel for a commuter and tourer. As a motorist, what's not to like?
Narrow rev range, boost threshold lag, noise, vibration, weight, smell, reliability, nasty to refuel. Regular adblue refilling for latest ones. I have yet to drive one that I "liked" let alone would want, although I freely acknowledge that I've only driven 2l diesels with a manual gearbox and a big 3l twin turbo diesel with an autobox would undoubtedly be much better.
As for being "quiet", that's usually better cabin sound insulation, I'm yet to see one that doesn't sound like a wagon when stood outside, no matter how muted it is inside.
steveL98 said:
Why all the sudden hate for diesels?
People have short memories, weren't we recently encourage to buy them as they were quieter, cleaner and more economical?
I think you have the short memory People have short memories, weren't we recently encourage to buy them as they were quieter, cleaner and more economical?
We weren't encouraged to buy anything. Diesels were known to be sooty dirty things that produced harmful NOx back then.What DID happen was the government of the day focused on a single pollutant (CO2) and introduced CO2-linked vehicle excise, which meant people who didn't care about the NOx and particulates bought them because it saved them money compared with a petrol car.
In other places governments focused on NOx and particulates rather than CO2, and in those places diesels remained niche or non-existent power sources for cars.
I remember in the mid-80s some of my parents' friends had diesels purely because they were cheaper to run. Even then, when both our family cars ran on leaded petrol, my dad was saying how dirty the diesel exhaust was.
I also remember in science classes in the early-90s learning about how high-compression in internal combustion engines produced higher levels of NOx and that these were harmful to biological life. My school was stuck in a 1930s timewarp, so there was no way this was new information even 25-30 years ago.
heebeegeetee said:
My Nissan xtrail tow vehicle doesn't have a narrow rev range, doesn't have any lag, even when towing it is utter simplicity to drive and very relaxing, and all from a 2 litre four pot. It has a bit of noise and vibration at tick-over, it smells of leather, it's no harder to refuel than anything else. It's more economical when towing than a couple of my petrol car's on their own.
Adblue would be a faff, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least the additives for diesel are benign and safe to handle. The additives which petrol has required since about 1920 have been and are extremely dangerous and would never be allowed to be handled by the public.
You should keep hold of that car, being as it is the only one in existence that has no turbo lag. Adblue would be a faff, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least the additives for diesel are benign and safe to handle. The additives which petrol has required since about 1920 have been and are extremely dangerous and would never be allowed to be handled by the public.
Limpet said:
Brett748 said:
I love my F30 330d, the engine is fantastic.
I wouldn't want a diesel engine in my Triumph but for a motorway saloon a big six cylinder diesel is awesome.
It's all about the application.
Completely agree with this. I wouldn't want a diesel engine in my Triumph but for a motorway saloon a big six cylinder diesel is awesome.
It's all about the application.
Hating a fuel makes no sense. Drive the car and judge the end product. I've thoroughly enjoyed every x30d/35d BMW I've driven. Terrific performance, especially with an autobox.
If my job changes & I need to commute a regular long distance again, I’ll have no hesitation in buying another diesel. Horses for courses.
TheDrBrian said:
heebeegeetee said:
My Nissan xtrail tow vehicle doesn't have a narrow rev range, doesn't have any lag, even when towing it is utter simplicity to drive and very relaxing, and all from a 2 litre four pot. It has a bit of noise and vibration at tick-over, it smells of leather, it's no harder to refuel than anything else. It's more economical when towing than a couple of my petrol car's on their own.
Adblue would be a faff, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least the additives for diesel are benign and safe to handle. The additives which petrol has required since about 1920 have been and are extremely dangerous and would never be allowed to be handled by the public.
You should keep hold of that car, being as it is the only one in existence that has no turbo lag. Adblue would be a faff, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least the additives for diesel are benign and safe to handle. The additives which petrol has required since about 1920 have been and are extremely dangerous and would never be allowed to be handled by the public.
So the problem there isn't lag, it's that the torque dies higher up in the rev band because the turbo is struggling to keep up.
donkmeister said:
I remember in the mid-80s some of my parents' friends had diesels purely because they were cheaper to run. Even then, when both our family cars ran on leaded petrol, my dad was saying how dirty the diesel exhaust was.
Blimey, even when running lead, even before catalytic converters when a petrol engine had the capacity to kill you stone dead flat in minutes (and was and is a preferred method of painless suicide), people thought petrol engines were "clean"? 
edward1 said:
There is nothing wrong with diesel as a fuel, however when a mix of bug business and politics influence peoples buying habits then we end up with the mess we are in now.
If we take a trip down memory lane to when the shift towards diesel for the average family car started, the typical family saloon was a vectra/mondeo/passat with many on company car schemes. Company car tax was based purchase price and the majority of family sized cars were probably 2.0l petrols with around 150bhp and around 9sec 0-60 time. At the time I was fortunate enough to run a 2.5v6 company car and was happy(ish) with sub 30mpg.
Around this time common rail (and for VW PD) technology was making its way into the normal car with BHP for diesel getting over 100 and performance becoming more respectable. Fuel prices were rising and for people doing above average miles the diesel was a sensible alternative. This also coincided with more concern over global warming and CO2 suddenly becoming classed as a pollutant. Going further back in time the issues had been acid rain and reducing sulphur etc from fuels.
This gave the government an opportunity to be seen to be doing something for the environment and probably raising some more cash by tweaking first the company car tax rates and then VED to be based on CO2 emissions. At the time when my lease was up I replaced the v6 with a much slower 2l diesel. At this time there was no DPF to worry about and the diesel engines had got better so typically now around 120-150bhp from a 2l, they were still considered reliable workhorses, more efficient than the petrol equivalent and now about on a par in terms of performance.
Everyone knew that diesels emitted particulates that were bad for our health, buses and taxis had been doing so for years, but whilst the bulk of diesel cars were owned by high milers going up and down the m/way the emissions got quickly dispersed and cities didn't get any worse.
Couple a tiered VED system that looked at 1 thing only CO2 (directly linked to fuel efficiency) and increasing prices at the pump with ever improving performance and crazy mpg claims (thanks to NEDC) for diesel then it is no surprise there was a rush to replace your petrol with a shiny new diesel. If you set a target for the manufactures which the VED bands essentially are then it is inevitable that they will find the easiest way to achieve it, i.e. tune the car to perform well in the test, no one cares what happens after.
Now with everyone used to the way diesel delvers power, better mpg than they used to get (though no where near the claims), society realises that this increase in diesel (combined with a general increase in traffic) is causing health issues in our cities. Non one is going to suddenly give up the power and economy and low tax they have just got used to so we try and fix the diesel with ever more complex add ons, DPF's etc. These work well when the diesel is used in the environment it is best suited, good long runs at steady rpm etc not around town on short start stop runs. Now we have people who bought a diesel because of the tax and promised economy who find it breaks because of all the bolt on emission stuff. Can you blame them when the easiest most robust cost effective option is a dpf removal and egr delete.
Manufacturers have found they can apply the technologies developed for diesel to petrol and we have GDI engines. This is probably the first big advancement in petrol engine technology for some time and we can get near diesel economy from petrol, but they sound like a diesel at idle and it would seem start to suffer some of the same fine particulate and NOx issues.
Ultimately the average driver doesn't care about how many grams of co2 the car emits, what they care about is how much at the pump. LPG burns much cleaner than petrol or diesel but you lose say 5-10% economy. Due to price this is more than compensated at the pump, however it would never be a favoured solution by government due to overall increase CO2 emission. With government support 10-15 years ago it could have been part of the solution but I would say that boat has sailed. The future is, short term, IC engines with lots of add-on gubbins to try and keep the exhaust emissions cleaner ( likely reduced reliability) and the continued swing to EV.
As for diesel engines being refined, yes a big 6-8 pot in a rangie or exec saloon once on the move they are. 4 pots in the everyday hatchback, they are alot better than they were but when you jump from a diesel straight into the petrol equivalent (particularly if not GDI) the difference is immediately evident.
I strongly believe that buses and taxis etc should have been targeted first, a vehicle that stops every few yards must be ideal for regenerative braking but telling stagecoach to swap their fleet in a short timeframe would not go down well, nudging the general public who these days seem to favour a few year lease deal is a much easier target.
What a genuinely good post! Thank you for posting this. You are absolutely right!If we take a trip down memory lane to when the shift towards diesel for the average family car started, the typical family saloon was a vectra/mondeo/passat with many on company car schemes. Company car tax was based purchase price and the majority of family sized cars were probably 2.0l petrols with around 150bhp and around 9sec 0-60 time. At the time I was fortunate enough to run a 2.5v6 company car and was happy(ish) with sub 30mpg.
Around this time common rail (and for VW PD) technology was making its way into the normal car with BHP for diesel getting over 100 and performance becoming more respectable. Fuel prices were rising and for people doing above average miles the diesel was a sensible alternative. This also coincided with more concern over global warming and CO2 suddenly becoming classed as a pollutant. Going further back in time the issues had been acid rain and reducing sulphur etc from fuels.
This gave the government an opportunity to be seen to be doing something for the environment and probably raising some more cash by tweaking first the company car tax rates and then VED to be based on CO2 emissions. At the time when my lease was up I replaced the v6 with a much slower 2l diesel. At this time there was no DPF to worry about and the diesel engines had got better so typically now around 120-150bhp from a 2l, they were still considered reliable workhorses, more efficient than the petrol equivalent and now about on a par in terms of performance.
Everyone knew that diesels emitted particulates that were bad for our health, buses and taxis had been doing so for years, but whilst the bulk of diesel cars were owned by high milers going up and down the m/way the emissions got quickly dispersed and cities didn't get any worse.
Couple a tiered VED system that looked at 1 thing only CO2 (directly linked to fuel efficiency) and increasing prices at the pump with ever improving performance and crazy mpg claims (thanks to NEDC) for diesel then it is no surprise there was a rush to replace your petrol with a shiny new diesel. If you set a target for the manufactures which the VED bands essentially are then it is inevitable that they will find the easiest way to achieve it, i.e. tune the car to perform well in the test, no one cares what happens after.
Now with everyone used to the way diesel delvers power, better mpg than they used to get (though no where near the claims), society realises that this increase in diesel (combined with a general increase in traffic) is causing health issues in our cities. Non one is going to suddenly give up the power and economy and low tax they have just got used to so we try and fix the diesel with ever more complex add ons, DPF's etc. These work well when the diesel is used in the environment it is best suited, good long runs at steady rpm etc not around town on short start stop runs. Now we have people who bought a diesel because of the tax and promised economy who find it breaks because of all the bolt on emission stuff. Can you blame them when the easiest most robust cost effective option is a dpf removal and egr delete.
Manufacturers have found they can apply the technologies developed for diesel to petrol and we have GDI engines. This is probably the first big advancement in petrol engine technology for some time and we can get near diesel economy from petrol, but they sound like a diesel at idle and it would seem start to suffer some of the same fine particulate and NOx issues.
Ultimately the average driver doesn't care about how many grams of co2 the car emits, what they care about is how much at the pump. LPG burns much cleaner than petrol or diesel but you lose say 5-10% economy. Due to price this is more than compensated at the pump, however it would never be a favoured solution by government due to overall increase CO2 emission. With government support 10-15 years ago it could have been part of the solution but I would say that boat has sailed. The future is, short term, IC engines with lots of add-on gubbins to try and keep the exhaust emissions cleaner ( likely reduced reliability) and the continued swing to EV.
As for diesel engines being refined, yes a big 6-8 pot in a rangie or exec saloon once on the move they are. 4 pots in the everyday hatchback, they are alot better than they were but when you jump from a diesel straight into the petrol equivalent (particularly if not GDI) the difference is immediately evident.
I strongly believe that buses and taxis etc should have been targeted first, a vehicle that stops every few yards must be ideal for regenerative braking but telling stagecoach to swap their fleet in a short timeframe would not go down well, nudging the general public who these days seem to favour a few year lease deal is a much easier target.
edward1 said:
Ultimately the average driver doesn't care about how many grams of co2 the car emits, what they care about is how much at the pump. LPG burns much cleaner than petrol or diesel but you lose say 5-10% economy. Due to price this is more than compensated at the pump, however it would never be a favoured solution by government due to overall increase CO2 emission. With government support 10-15 years ago it could have been part of the solution but I would say that boat has sailed. The future is, short term, IC engines with lots of add-on gubbins to try and keep the exhaust emissions cleaner ( likely reduced reliability) and the continued swing to EV.
LPG produces less CO2 than petrol as it happens. Generally the lighter a hydrocarbon, the less CO2 you get per unit energy from burning it.While LPG is 5-10% less efficient than petrol, it also produces less CO2 when burned, which more than offsets the reduced efficiency. It's also higher octane, so an engine designed specifically for LPG could be run at a higher compression ratio which would increase efficiency.
In the case of diesels the higher efficiency of compression ignition offsets the higher CO2, so you get less CO2 overall.
youngsyr said:
TheDrBrian said:
heebeegeetee said:
My Nissan xtrail tow vehicle doesn't have a narrow rev range, doesn't have any lag, even when towing it is utter simplicity to drive and very relaxing, and all from a 2 litre four pot. It has a bit of noise and vibration at tick-over, it smells of leather, it's no harder to refuel than anything else. It's more economical when towing than a couple of my petrol car's on their own.
Adblue would be a faff, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least the additives for diesel are benign and safe to handle. The additives which petrol has required since about 1920 have been and are extremely dangerous and would never be allowed to be handled by the public.
You should keep hold of that car, being as it is the only one in existence that has no turbo lag. Adblue would be a faff, but it's worth bearing in mind that at least the additives for diesel are benign and safe to handle. The additives which petrol has required since about 1920 have been and are extremely dangerous and would never be allowed to be handled by the public.
So the problem there isn't lag, it's that the torque dies higher up in the rev band because the turbo is struggling to keep up.
The trouble being is that the modern crop of diesels have been boosted so much that outside of the turbo range they are horrible. If you drop below below the threshold they take an *age* to slowly build back up...and then take off like a scalded cat....for half a second before they run out the other side of the rev-range! Compounded of course by diesels being higher geared than petrol cars.
Sure you can to an extent drive round it. Slow down a bit more and use 1st where you would have used 2nd, start to rev a second before you want to move (or just buy an auto) etc...but I don't *like* it. It's annoying and I have yet to find a diesel that doesn't do it. Best was a Golf 1.6d...worst was 318d.
In a 3.0d however I'm sure there is enough torque off boost to get you into boost.
Of course there are equally horrible petrol cars... I hated the 1.8i Insignia for example, they seem to have been tuned for diesel like low end torque but with poor mpg and no redeeming power at the top end. Truly the worst of both.
I suspect many people are so used to laggy boosted engines now that they think it's normal, so anything with slightly reduced lag is seen as "no lag." Also "lazy torque" is just code for "can't be arsed to use the gearbox correctly" as far as I can tell. The last diesel I drove was a Golf GTD and the performance was unexciting, certainly nothing special, and didn't feel appreciably fast despite having almost double the torque of my car.
RobDickinson said:
Nasty stinky poisonous s
t.
Never liked them, never owned one, never will.
Sooner they are all off the roads the better.
+1t.Never liked them, never owned one, never will.
Sooner they are all off the roads the better.
And their owners are the most insufferable bores, who are forever quoting numbers to legitimise their choice.
In short, diesel bores deserve a swift kick in the baws.
This site is full of people who just moan.
Ive driven quite a few diesels, were any of them fun, no not really. But they get the job done and dont drink fuel. Thats appealing for lots of people. They dont care about how many revs it does, and they are happy to drive them in a lazy way, as they are only wanting to go from A to B with minimum fuss.
Do I own one, no.
Do I want to own one, no.
But others do like them and so what if we dont want one
Ive driven quite a few diesels, were any of them fun, no not really. But they get the job done and dont drink fuel. Thats appealing for lots of people. They dont care about how many revs it does, and they are happy to drive them in a lazy way, as they are only wanting to go from A to B with minimum fuss.
Do I own one, no.
Do I want to own one, no.
But others do like them and so what if we dont want one
Fastdruid said:
No, it really is lag. Boost threshold lag to be precise.
I know what you are describing, but that isn't really the right term to use. It is more to do with trying to place too much demand on the engine outside the turbos operational range than the response to demand in the operational range. To put it another way if there isn't enough available power to accelerate the car the rpm will never reach the point at which the turbo will spool so it isn't lag, the turbo response is simply unavailable in that operating region.So it really isn't lag, it is an engine with poor output below the boost threshold. I've driven a few petrol turbo engined cars that have this problem too.
Tim bo said:
AC43 said:
What an odd thing to post on an enthusiasts' site.
Sound is a massive part of the experience for me.
It's been a huge factor in the purchase in all of my cars.
A bad engine ruins the entire car as far as I'm concerned.
Indeed.Sound is a massive part of the experience for me.
It's been a huge factor in the purchase in all of my cars.
A bad engine ruins the entire car as far as I'm concerned.
Is the reason why I have a quiet cry to myself when I see 430d and E350d convertibles and the like. Engine noise is a big part of the roof down experience.
And then you lower the roof on your crappy diesel and you're met with the rattly sounds of a taxi.
If I was on a track day, then of course I wouldn't want a sweaty diesel. For long distance motorway journeys in an exec saloon I don't car if my car pops and bangs, I just want something quick at high speeds and have my favourite music on to keep me happy for a few hours.
If I had a short commute on B roads, I'd go for something like an S3. If I was to have a convertible, I wouldn't buy a diesel. In an ideal world (and with bottomless pockets) a V8 saloon would be ideal. I'll give it 10 years til I'm a powerfully built company director, and then I can do that. Then you can both massage my helmet with your tonsils and tell me how happy you are that I conform with the petrol loving masses.
Fastdruid said:
Sure you can to an extent drive round it. Slow down a bit more and use 1st where you would have used 2nd, start to rev a second before you want to move (or just buy an auto) etc...
Mine is an auto. You plant your foot. It considers changing gear. Does it. Nothing happens. Then it comes on boost and goes. If anything it's worse. Of course you can manually knock it down through the gears which at least removes the auto's thinking time, but you still have noticeable lag between WOT and response.otolith said:
Mine is an auto. You plant your foot. It considers changing gear. Does it. Nothing happens. Then it comes on boost and goes. If anything it's worse. Of course you can manually knock it down through the gears which at least removes the auto's thinking time, but you still have noticeable lag between WOT and response.
What engine do you have? Seems like you've got a small engine and are expecting big engine performance?
You would have the same problem in a small engined turbo charged petrol engine.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff